Michigan Votes Forum

There is to much emphasis in Michigan Court on collecting fines for traffic violations. Istead of there being any justice in hearing cases all the court officials / prosecuting attorneys want to do is to have you plead guilty to a lesser charge and collect a few hundred dollars. Since when did misssing a court date become a criminal offense. My license was suspended for missing a traffic court appearance and although I paid the $250 in fines I now have to either plead guilty to driving on suspended license or fight it in criminal court.

The Michigan Travel commission wants to spend $30 million of that $167 in the general fund, to promote tourism instead of repairing roads or fostering better driving habits! DAMN UNETHICAL. I'd like to know what other pork barrel spending that money is being used for. The people who enacted this law should be jailed for treason and lying to the citizens of Michigan and circumventing the law. Did you also know, that as a licensed driver in Michigan, you can be slapped with this driver fee if you get pulled over in another state!? You're not even in Michigan, yet you will be fined! Just another reason to leave this wretched bankrupt dictatorship behind. I'd rather plant corn on the moon than waste my life here looking for a respectable job cleaning the grand river of sewage every time it rains. Just what kind of sights do these pricks think they're going to promote that would make ANYONE want to visit this craphole? Dilapidated lighthouses? ZOO kept geriatric patients who are confused by stairs?

to get our money back? If this law is so unconstitutional, someone step up and I'll join in. I want my grand back.

my reference to spelling was to acknowledge the obvious with regard to the hard luck story. I do not necessarily agree with Granholm's driver responsibility law. Indeed, my suggestion that the state charging for mispellings was to underline how ludicrous lawmakers have become to avoid addressing budget issues---don't try to fix it right, fix it easy, by sticking it to individuals like the hard luck story guy, or, for that matter, anyone else lawmakers can get away with doing it to. No, I don't work for the State.

Having read the hard luck story, I must admit that the state has come down "hard" on him. State intolerance of marginalized individuals and "irresponsible" behavior has been increasing over the last decade or two. The driver responsibility fees in question are just a way for the state to take your money as they are hitting you over the head. Hard luck guy is probably an OK guy, a party-down type (as am I), but DAMN! come Monday morning, you have to get your act together better than that!

2003 Senate Bill 509 (Impose "driver responsibility fees" ) (Senate Roll Call 371) Passed in the Senate (32 to 4) on July 15, 2003, to concur with the House version of the bill, which does not include the provision allowing a driver subject to the fees the option to choose to undergo a driver improvement course to avoid them. The House version also reserves some of the fee revenue from the fees to pay local governments for fire protection services provided to state buildings. [History, Amendments & Comments] The vote was 32 in favor, 4 opposed, and 2 not voting (Senate Roll Call 371 at Senate Journal 68) Print-friendly version [Comment on this vote | View others' comments] Line Vote Support Support Oppose Oppose Not Voting Not Voting Undecided Legislators (Republican) 9010 90% 100 0% 991 9% 22 total votes Legislators (Democrat) 7525 75% 2575 25% 100 0% 16 total votes Voters 100 0% 100 100% 100 0% 1 total vote What do you think? Support Oppose Undecided (logon required) Line The following legislators supported 2003 Senate Bill 509 (Impose "driver responsibility fees" ): Allen (R) Barcia (D) Basham (D) Bernero (D) Birkholz (R) Bishop (R) Brater (D) Brown (R) Cassis (R) Cherry (D) Clark-Coleman (D) Cropsey (R) Garcia (R) George (R) Gilbert (R) Goschka (R) Hammerstrom (R) Hardiman (R) Jacobs (D) Jelinek (R) Kuipers (R) McManus (R) Olshove (D) Patterson (R) Prusi (D) Sanborn (R) Schauer (D) Stamas (R) Switalski (D) Thomas (D) Toy (R) Van Woerkom (R) The following legislators opposed 2003 Senate Bill 509 (Impose "driver responsibility fees" ): Clarke (D) Emerson (D) Leland (D) Scott (D) The following legislators did not vote on 2003 Senate Bill 509 (Impose "driver responsibility fees" ): Johnson (R) Sikkema (R) Line Comments Received in the Senate on July 3, 2003. Passed in the Senate (32 to 4) on July 15, 2003. New Comment 1) Sen. Leland's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on July 31, 2003] Senator Leland, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against concurring in the House Substitute and moved that the statement he made during the discussion of concurring in the House Substitute be printed as his reason for voting "no." The motion prevailed. Senator Leland's statement is as follows: I'm going to vote "no" on this bill now, and I would hope that most of my colleagues would vote "no." I think what we're going to end up doing here is we're going to end up with a lot of drivers now who are going to be driving with no license. These folks who are going to be tagged with this fine are going to be hit twice. I think it's unfair. Some folks will have to drive for whatever their reasons are, and if they have to pay this additional money to restore or to keep their driver's license, they're going to end up driving on the streets with no driver's license. It is what it is. Again, I think that it's unfortunate that we are passing a law that says that justice is for those who can afford to pay the price. I don't think that people who necessarily have bad driving records are driving worse than other folks. They're just stuck in a situation where they're helpless, they can't get out, and they don't know how to use the system or manipulate the system. I think this is a bad bill. I tried to make it a better bill with my amendment. As I indicated, my amendment would have sent them to driving school as an option. The purpose of this bill is to make better drivers. We're not making better drivers in this bill by sticking it to them financially, and we're sticking it to the people who are on the low end of the scale, who are the folks who can least afford it. I think this is very unfortunate, and I'm sorry that my colleagues don't agree with me. Please vote "no" on this bill. Reply New Comment Line

With all the crap they have to try to factor together. They forgot some good ones. The F.O.C. or MiSDU, is already suspending driving Rights. For "Deadbeat" dads. You wanna talk about a vicious circle. Dad looses job, Dad falls behind in support. Unemployment keeps dad Just Over Broke. Police pick dad up for child support warrant. Judge suspends dads driving rights until his support is current. Dad cannot find employment, has to leave Michganistan to find work. Dad cannot get a license in another state, due to F.O.C. suspension . And gets pulled over. Has car impounded and gets to goto jail for driving on a suspended license. Now dad is paying fines in two states. And two counties. Grand total, 4000.00$, and counting. Cannot forget court costs. Meanwhile, Child support is due on the first. Thanx for really thinking this one threw. I hope it stimulated enough money for the fire departments. Because, houses are still burning down. And will keep burning down. I mean, not even a psychic fireman can predict when an accident will happen. Wait, aren't most of them volunteers anyway? How much does a volunteer get paid. Cause, I mean, now I need a place to live, something to eat, a way to pay my child support. And a way to get back and forth to my job! Stranded in Ohio.

does revoking the driving privelege of a dead-beat dad accomplish? does it make him pay his fines? (and YES, court ordered child support IS a fine.) NO. does it make him ABLE to pay his fines? NO. does it make him WANT to pay his fines? NO. it has nothing to do with paying child support, except that it is a DIFFERENT form of punishment. let's try CHAIN GANGS. LEAVE THE DRIVER'S LICENSE ALONE. THE STATE ALREADY WANTS TO TAKE IT FROM YOU BECAUSE YOU WALKED TOO CLOSE TO A BAR.

Right to Travel DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS, HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter) For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases: CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221. CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579. It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution. CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125. CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941. As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel. Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions -- such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few -- on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so? For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly: "The state cannot diminish rights of the people." And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void." Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point -- that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward: "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24 "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491. "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946 We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding." In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..." Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials? If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are: 1. by lawfully amending the constitution, or 2. by a person knowingly waiving a particular right. Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations. There are basically two groups of people in this category: 1. Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of the state. Here is what the courts have said about this: "...For 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...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073. There are many court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the right of the citizen to travel and a government privilege and there are numerous other court decisions that spell out the jurisdiction issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions, we will leave it to officers to research it further for themselves. 2. The second group of citizens that is legally under the jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who have voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and unrestricted by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state driver's license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words, by contract.) We should remember what makes this legal and not a violation of the common law right to travel is that they knowingly volunteer by contract to waive their rights. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the state's powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights. This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have applied for and received licenses, registrations and obtained insurance after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory? Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between privileges and rights. We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses and vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect - laws that are not laws at all. An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supersedes all other laws -- the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer's duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling -- discussed earlier -- in mind before issuing citations concerning licensing, registration, and insurance: "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489. And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one's daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.

on a very interesting subject. but, alas, it will probably fall on deaf ears. the michigan constitution already has 'problems' within it, some dealing with smaller issues, and a few dealing with major ones. one is the "search and seizure" clause. (the state's version of the united states 4th amendment) the last half of it has been declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL several times. it still stands in the state constitution, and it is STILL the basis of most lawmaker's decisions to deprive us of our rights. until we instill into our politicians the idea that everyone's rights are sacred, then they will continue to usurp them at will.

...that this state would be dumb enough to re-elect this communistic, money-grabbing, ego-sentric, know-it-all, but really know nothing bitch. I'm ashamed to admit I'm from here!

If you remember The Detroit News supported DeVos and the Free Press backed Granholm. Now with this and her thankfully failed "tax everything" plan the Free Press stated that she was "not the candidate they thought she was." Read between the lines- she lied to us all! Unfortunately it's too late do anything about it now. I still can't believe she won. I am still convinced that the only reason she did win was because of Bush. The Democratic takeover of the House and Senate in Washington was America sending a mesage to Bush. If Kerry would have won in 2004, Granholm wouldn't have anyone to blame Michigan's problems on, and I am convinced that DeVos would be governor today. No Bush and no Granholm would have made a better Michigan and America, PERIOD! If you dissagree, that's fine. YOU"RE WRONG!!!

WHO IS READY FOR THE NEXT REVOLUTION? I'M TELLING YOU FOLKS, IT'S ON IT'S WAY. LIKE THE BOY SCOUTS MOTTO SAYS "ALWAYS BE PREPARED". THIS COUNTRY IS GOING TO HELL IN A HAND BAG AND WE NEED TO BE PUTTING BOTH OF OUR FEET DOWN. JUST BECAUSE IT MAY NOT BE IN YOUR "BACKYARD" YET DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU SHOULD BE COMPLACENT ABOUT THE ISSUES DESTROYING OUR GREAT LAND. ONCE ONE OF THE GREATEST STATES AND OR PLACES IN THE WORLD HAS NOW BEEN REDUCED TO A GIANT SHIT HOLE. MOLE FACE NEEDS TO BE REPEALED ALONG WITH ALL OF HER IDIOTIC NEW LAWS. COME ON ARE YOU KIDDING ME. IF A HUNTER GETS CAUGHT PISSING IN THE WOODS, HE/SHE IS BEING PUT ON THE SEXUAL PREDATOR LIST. W.T.F. IS NEXT.... I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE REST OF YOU, BUT I'M FED UP!!!

It looks as if there are plenty of people mad at this law as am I. Blogging about it won't fix it. Contact your representatives. I did but the more who do may get better results. Their careers revolve around your vote and you may be surprised at the results you will get.

Is the house ever gonna do anything with this bill or just sit it in a judiciary committee for ever??? It was given to them on January 22nd and they moved it to the committee the same day and nothing has happened since!!!!! They need to include an amnesty clause to refund the people who have already been assesed this draconian fine and refund those who have already paid it! Does anyone know any lawyers who want to fight the constitutional validity of this crap??????

You're holding your breath on Bruce Caswell. He's a NOBODY. This bill of his was dead before he even wrote it. The person you want to assail is Rep. Tom Pearce, ROCKFORD Transportation committee Phone: Phone: 1-888-414-3684 - (517) 373-0218 He's the one who is reviewing the law and probably dicking around waiting to get Dept. of transportation personell to testify before the legislature, as to just how NON effective this law has been in reducing the bad drivers on the road. He already held hearings with testimony given by Circuit Judge William Buhl and a colorful assortment of pissed off drivers from his district. And only GOD knows when he'll make a damn decision. All you have to do is goto WOODTV 8 website and search for the 2 video segments they did, and then post your same complaints in their forum under GOOD DRIVERS BAD DRIVERS. Use the search terms "Drivers react to surprise fines" & "Give me a brake" And as for that prick in NJ, I hope the trooper driving the governors SUV gets a damn driver fee too, and same for the governor for not wearing his seatbelt. Yeah, that's the state where this punk ass law originated. Serves them right.

As much as well all hate this bill. Who is this Bruce Character. Hmm noone knows him because he is a nobody;therefore, this bill will not pass. Obviously.

my dad got caught drinking and driving and he now get social security and he's affraid to go with direct deposit because someone told him they can legally take your money from your benefits for a bad drivers fee. Is this true?

well, i wrote to Representative Tom Pearce 73rd House District about this bill and his efforts and here is his response Michael, I thank you for your message. Late last session, I was named co-chair of the House Transportation Subcommittee on Driver Responsibility. On December 13, we held our first, and only, hearing on the program. As we have since entered into a new session, that former subcommittee no longer exists. I have, however, continued meeting with the Department of Treasury and the Office of the Secretary of State in an attempt to further legislation to help those most affected by the program. Many ideas have been brought to the table, but with the state's current budget deficit, it seems unlikely that this program will be eliminated. I will keep your comments in mind as we proceed with our review of legislation possibilities. Could I also please have your home mailing address for my office records? Thank you. Looking Forward and Up, Representative Tom Pearce 73rd House District What a bunch of crap!!! Because Jenny and the other fine politicians cant create a working financial plan our constitutional rights get trampled on?? Im ready to say screw this state and rent a one way truck along with the rest of the sane thinking people!!

it's whether or not the bill is a good idea.

Is a good idea, and one that warrants broad support. Eliminate the punitive "driver responsibility fee," and the sooner the better. I don't care who created the fee. It was the wrong thing to do. I don't care who introduced this bill to eliminate the fee, or who eventually votes to support it. Both are the right thing to do. I just want to see it passed and signed into law. That's my opinion, as a voting, taxpaying, 40-year Michigan resident and citizen, who also happens to have a good enough driving record that I don't have to pay the repugnant fee in question.

In the next 20 years michigan will becom a Prison or college state only(if your not in cp;;ege your in prison or jail) Did You KNOW?? That Michigan has more jails/prisons than any state in the counrty, OR THE WHOLE WORLD for that matter ?? and if laws like this stick around making honest hard working citizens into Criminals and fellons ,Michigan will continue to have the world record for the most jails, courthouses and prisons and once your in their sytem, you can never leave. Everyone Needs to do somthing about this Or Nothing will ever change , the government will hold all the power because we "decided" to do nothing,and let the government take the steeting wheel its your state ,its your home, its your childrens home too. do you want to live in constant fear of your next fine from the government for breaking a simple trafic law(misdimeaner) and paying FELLON consiqunces Or do think this should be a free and fair country the way our founding fathers intened its only Really "WE THE PEOPLE" if the we the people get involed and watch what our government is doing, so that it dosn't become a competitor in our economy , in doing so opens the door to communist practices, because we let the government run the government and not "WE THE PEOPLE" only we the people will suffer, because crimes will be commited because the goverment decied you were one upon breaking a misdimener trafic law that could cost you the right to drive ,wich in turn will cost you your job , and because u need transportation to make money , and u need money to pay outsatnding fines, you will never . ever have that Opportunity in "the land of oportunity again, your only choice is crime and welfare ,unless somehow you have a revolutionary way to recive money as a gift in the mail over and over again, without having transportation or a job i would like to hear it. unless of course your jennifer granholm. because i dont belive in her way of collecting from hard working michiganders because they need to drive to get to work, just seems a little?? unfair?. YOU know what u need to do, contact state legislate/ about this let them know u think this is unfair and outraged that the goverment would pull a trick like this u can Also pettition to the state legislature at the LINKS ON THE LEFT OF THIS POST do somthing about this or watch your home state and all its hope and oportunitys for economic recovery Die and suffocate and wither away in the next 10 years and become nothing but a prison and criminal state where everyone has some kind of inditment with the law, no matter how honest or hardworking they really are , very sad really is.. our home is being destoryed out of negligance to watch our government, vote , let the legislate know what u think, BE INFORMED DO! SAVE OUR GREAT STATE before its too late and we are all a criminal (links on the left....)http://www.michiganvotes.org/Find.aspx (links on the left...)http://www.michiganvotes.org/Legislator.aspx

This law was made with good intention i think The only problem is, THE WORST THINGS IMMIGANBLE WERE DONE OUT OF SOMONES GOOD INTENTIONS(remeber hitler and and the world wars ? he was only trying to save germanys economy and government) the same thing granholm is trying to do, save our economy and deifict problem.

if you have lost a child , but hating somone for it is only gonna make it harder on your self forgivness can give you hope hate and resenment will suffocate your soul you just have to accept they are with god my brother was shot 3 years ago its ok to be pissed for a while, but if you can never forgive you will never let go of the pain

15 years ago. it took a while,but i got to see the man who did it fry in the electric chair. i DIDN'T forgive him. i watched him recieve JUSTICE. i'll leave the forgiveness up to the divinity, i'll work hard to provide the JUSTICE. it's not eating me up inside, i'm perfectly fine with it. you should try it sometime. it works BETTER than forgiveness, because i know that if GOD wants to forgive him, he will, and it will not affect GOD'S decision one way or another if I forgive him or not. i just made sure he wasn't late for his appointment with the almighty.

This should be against the law. It is in law is called double jeopardy (everyone knows this) A person can not be charged twice for the same crime. I can not pay because I have no job, I am in bankruptcy and there are no jobs in Michigan. I will do everything in my power to get this changed. This why I am leaving this state and will not look back.

then you are not doing everything in your power to change this law, as you claim. the only hope for seeing this law changed is for people who are committed to living in Michigan to raise absolute Hell with their representatives in te legislature over it.

I was caught twice in one year for having no proof of insurance, why? cause the jobs are all abandoning us here. I had two children and a husband making 6.30 an hour part time. And with the price of insurance I couldnt afford it. I have to keep a roof over my familys head and get to work, how do they expect us to do that. Then I recieved the letters that I had to pay two hundred extra dollars a piece for two years. After I forked out all the money for the tickets. I think that the fines really suck and need to leave us that are really tring to make it alone. I vote to demolish this stupid law.

got caught for having an expired licsence no suspension or any other trouble. Paid a late fee when I renewed my licsence, paid 100.00 dollar ticket, 150.00 drs fee and now still owe 150.00 for my second year. I cant afford to stick by michigan. Michigan don't care about its people just their money.

bye bye

just cause you lost a loved one in a auto accident gives you know right to unfairly and unconstitutionally fee or tax anyone out of existence.Bills like these are nothing but a rip off to all the people of Michigan ,no wonder everyone is leaving this shithole Commie Canuck State ,last one left Blow it Up.

"Why aren't these types of things thought out before making such laws" Because all you sheeple seem to believe the bunk that the dems/socialists feed you and keep electing them. The dems/socialists couldn't care less about poor people or minoities or unions. They just pander to these groups to get elected. The conservatives believe in giving you a chance at success, not free handouts for votes. Most if not all dem programs are aimed at keeping the little people under the government thumb. Wake Up Folks. You are being used.

abused it's power long long ago when deciding to force you get a license to drive. Now they want to license interior decorators. Man, some of you people are pretty dense.

I'm a mother of 3 young children working 50 to 60 hours a week to make ends meet. YOU ARE NOTHING BUT AN IGNORANT MORON!

You only know about 365 days in advance of when your license expires, what is so tough about that? You cry baby's really crack me up- everything is Granholm's fault. LMAO

or haven't you figured that out by now? obviously not.

If you're too stupid to renew your license before it expires, and you insist on blaming someone else then you have issues. Typical right-wing whiner.

But should it cost hundred of dollars in penalties as a result? I don't think so, and it doesn't matter whether I am a left or right winger.

It would be a moot point if you would just get off your lazy butt and spend the $ to renew. Sorry to sound so harsh, but damn. You right wingers are doing an awful lot of whining these days.

are perfectly happy with having your rights AND MINE trampled on.