Driving is a RIGHT

[[AK]Nuts]

Driving is not a privilege; it's a right.


Go!

[[AK]Rocks]

Really? So is walking....if you have the balance...

[[AK]Squidly]

People are too stupid for it to be a right.

[[AK]Bribo]

Driving on the right is a right, right?

[[AK]Nuts]

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?

[[AK]Bribo]

You have a constitutional right to drive on roads and highways

Where in the Constitution is this right mentioned?

[[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.

[[AK]Rocks]

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...

[[AK]Nuts]

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.

[[AK]Rocks]

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...

[Nightshiver]

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

[[AK]Nuts]

If you refuse, your priveledge of driving is revoked.
Nightshiver

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.

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".

[[AK]Nuts]

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...

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)

[Nightshiver]

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.

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.

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...

[[AK?]Azmodious]

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.