Driving is not a privilege; it's a right.
Go!
Printable View
Driving is not a privilege; it's a right.
Go!
Really? So is walking....if you have the balance...
People are too stupid for it to be a right.
Driving on the right is a right, right?
You have a constitutional right to drive on roads and highways and when a state requires a license to do so, it is - in fact - denying you your constitutional right. There have been judges that have set precedence on this in various states and state supreme courts.
Who here has the guts to try it?
Where in the Constitution is this right mentioned?Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Nuts
Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)
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 right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.
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 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.
Case # 4 - "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the
territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.
Then why do you have to have a license or eye exam. So if my son fails his road test , we are denying he his rights... Hmm Doubt it.. Do you have the right to drive impaired? Blind? If so, I am back to walking away from the roads and highways...
Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.
Just like you can't scream fire but you still have freedom of speech.
Blah, didnt need to take a test to scream fire or prove I am not a sicko. If I needed to pass a speech test or prove I can talk well , they would be the same. Plus I dont remember anyone dieing from a drunk tongue before.. Next...
So just from a law enforcement perspective here in Colorado. I know that coveying yourself at your own discretion is a liberty. But per state law, if you choose to do so without following state law, you will be cited. For example, you have to have a drivers license, proof of insurance, and a properly registered vehicle. If you don't, you will end up in court. Also a nifty little tidbit for my state, by the act of driving, just driving, in the state of Colorado, you have already consented to giving a sample of either blood or breath if you are found to be driving under the influence. If you refuse, your priveledge of driving is revoked. So all I am saying is it is a liberty, but...state law must be adhered to, or your just a constitutionalist lol, that last part was a bad cop joke.
Nightshiver
The case of Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516. states very plainly: "The State cannot diminish rights of the people."Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshiver
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.
There is no question that a citation/ticket issued by a police officer, for no drivers license, no current vehicle registration, no vehicle insurance etc. which carries a fine or jail time, is a penalty or sanction, and is indeed "converting a Right into a crime".
We didn't always need driver's licenses: In the early days of motoring, every American learned to drive without any assistance from local, state, or federal government; most learned to drive safely; and most never had any government document to identify themselves or to prove that they had ever passed any government driving test. The states of Massachusetts and Missouri were the first to establish drivers licensing laws in 1903, but Missouri had no driver examination law until 1952. Massachusetts had an examination law for commercial chauffeurs in 1907, and passed its first requirement for an examination of general operators in 1920. The first state to require an examination of driver competency was Rhode Island in 1908 (it also required drivers to have state licenses as early as 1908). South Dakota was both the last state to impose drivers licenses (1954), and the last state to require driver license examinations (1959)Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Rocks
Ok so, in the Bill of Rights, show me where it plainly states for driving that it is a right guaranteed to the people specifically.Quote:
The case of Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516. states very plainly: "The State cannot diminish rights of the people."
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.
Now if driving was guaranteed specifially, it wouldnt give the states to revoke peoples licenses that need to have it done like habitual DUI offenders, etc...
Its been done here in texas. When i was younger one of my friends father was a member of the Texan Militia when they were being radicals. He did not have a drivers license, they didnt pay taxes (because there is somethin about taxes only being required during times of war, or some shit like that.) basically they got off on rules lawyering. Not a recommended practice though. They were in court all the time arguing with judges over one thing or another.
He said he hated it, while they actually did get away with him not needing a drivers license (and i think SS card, not sure though on that one), he said that the cops and courts hated them and would run them through the ringer every time they stepped over the line. (played out real bad for him the day he attempted identity theft with a script kiddy credit card generator.)
I asked him one day what was the basis of why he did not need a drivers licence, He mentioned something about it being a base right to use publicly purchased roads considering that it is the general public that funds the roads. But i think there was some catch about vehicle registration, i think he didn't register his vehicle because it was his own property so long as it was not registered. something about some of the wording in the agreement when you register your car gives the state some rights over your car and the use there of.
Another cop's opinion - Federal law may guarantee the public use of roads (haven't read over it personally) and state law is required to adhere to federal laws as a whole. However, states can add more specific/strict laws under the umbrella of federal law (i.e. federal law says you can drive on the road, but _______ state says to do so, you must have a valid driver's license) and it not be a violation of civil rights. It's like Tennessee law says 'drunk driving' is classified by driving with a Blood Alcohol Content over 0.08%, but I've heard of states having lower standards (as low as 0.06% I think). May vary from state to state, but I know if revoking/suspending someone's license were a violation of any state or federal law we'd have heard about it by now. As far as the case law being quoted, you do have the right (if you have a revoked/suspended license) to acquire what is called a restricted license, granting you the ability to carry out necessary functions such as driving to/from work, grocery store, hospital, etc., thus covering a person's basic needs. Its like the fact that if we ever have a war break out on American soil (which may happen sooner than we would have expected 20 years ago) interstate travel will be shut down to all civilians and set aside solely for military purposes. I don't know where that's written, but its one of the things mentioned by a local District Attorney during our civil rights classes in the police academy. I tend to ramble don't I...
One more thing to add, you can poke holes in the whole 'its a right to everyone' argument for various safety concerns, but one that comes to my mind would be the risk of the mentally handicapped driving. If you extend it as just a flat out constitutional right, then its promised to ALL Americans, thus including those that can barely function on their own. Sure some handicapped are able to drive and I'm sure they do it well, yet there are others that are functional enough to live on their own but may lack the hand/eye coordination necessary to drive, but given the opportunity to drive they may not have the presence of mind to realize they can't do it safely. Thus one of the many reasons you have to prove you can operate a vehicle well enough to be licensed before you can legally drive on public roadways.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness encompasses so many things (some times too many, sometimes not enough). And just as the Constitution doesn't expressly say that you can't f*ck a goat, clearly you can't. However, you can't deny the right of a citizen to travel on public roads. The ability to move freely is just as important as to own land. We never licensed horse-drawn wagons and for years we didn't license cars. It wasn't until states saw the opportunity to tax people under the guise of 'common good' that they began to trample on the individual rights bestowed to us by our Creator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshiver
Your constitutional rights only extend as far as they don't prohibit the rights of another citizen. A handicapped person poses a risk to other citizens in carrying out their right to drive; hence you can prohibit it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melric
"However, states can add more specific/strict laws under the umbrella of federal law"
Only as long as they don't deny the rights of the individual as defined by the Constitution and interpreted by federal judges. This is also why I believe that most gun laws are also unconstitutional.
I've still never seen anything in the constitution about driving. Unless I'm mistaken Nuts, the quotes you listed earlier were from case law, not from the constitution or amendments which doesn't make it a right, just an accepted practice for that jurisdiction. As far as the 'pursuit of happiness' goes, they're not taking away your ability to pursue happiness, just that you could only pursue it as fast as you can walk lol.
Case law dictates the interpretation of the Constitution. Take Kelo v. New London or Roe v. Wade. In each case the constitution was defined by judges in a new way and thus become the law of the land. There is no inherent right to privacy in the constitution, yet Roe v Wade's outcome gave us that right. There's no right to take property from individual to give it to another solely for economic gain; yet Kelo v. New London extended that right as well.
Hence; judges have declared that the right to drive on public roads is covered by our Constitution.
It's an interesting debate none the less and I just wanted to spark some discussion.... it's been pretty slow in here lately.
Ya, and this is a topic that you could argue either way and never get anywhere if both sides were bull-headed enough. I will say the day driving becomes an uncontrolled right given to any and all people is the day I find a subway to take everywhere I go lol.
I didnt read all the replys so I will apologize if this has already been said.
But in the case of your driver's license, this license isnt to give you access to roads, highways, etc its to give you the privledge of doing so in a motor vehicle.
Same as a CDL for Contract or Common carriers. Just because you have a driver's license doesnt mean you can jump in an eighteen wheeler and run a vehicle grossing nearly 80,000 lbs up and down the highways.
Most the argument is that 'driving' is actually a term applied to commercial operators. When you go to the zoo in your car you are actually 'traveling'. And thus there's a difference. A person transporting goods for commercial reasons can be regulated and controlled as it's part of commerce. Driving to your office or to you mother-in-laws house is traveling and thus can not be restricted.
Or something like that.
I'm also against Carpool/HOV lanes. My taxes paid for that lane yet I am prohibited from using it unless I have a friend? What the hell. It's a public roadway and thus I should have the right to use it.
I'm also against parking meters. You can't charge people to park on public roads... it's making a profit... it's a tax. And you can't criminalize parking on public roads. You're not impeding or infringing on the rights of others. But cities use parking meters not to control traffic or for safety but for profit.
Im still sticking with they arnt stopping you from using the roads. They are just stopping you from using your car on them. Feel free to stretch your legs, ride your bike, take a cab or bus, etc. But in order use your car, truck, or van for obvious convienance reason you will need to prove you are able to do so safely and responsabley. Then of course pay for it.
But what about state/US highways that have signs on them that say "Motorized vehicles only" and/or "No pedestrians"?
(Good deal, Nuts, this devil's advocate stuff is fun! :D)
It's an interesting issue that most people never fully understand. It's amazing how we have simply allowed our government to trample on our rights under the guise of 'safety'. State Governments collect millions and millions of dollars from us just so we can travel around our country on roads that we own.
And it's not all about safety. For example, the driver's test in California had all left-turns removed as it posed too great a risk for the DMV test facilitators. Driver's education courses are also not a requirement unless you are under 18. You don't have to prove that you can drive on the highway, merge with traffic, navigate city roadways, or anything overly complex. You simply drive in a right-hand box around the DMV Office through at least one intersection. As long as you check your mirrors, use your blinkers and obey the speed limit... you pass. Clearly this is not about safety. It's about money.
Yet people fail this test daily :)Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Nuts
Its something in the registering of the car that makes it not quite yours anymore. it is in the registering of your car that you sign over rights to the state. That is why the state is allowed to take your car away if they dont like how or where you use it.Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Bojan