Driving is a RIGHT

[[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.

[Melric]

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.

[[AK]Nuts]

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.

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.

"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.

[Melric]

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.

[[AK]Nuts]

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.

[[AK]Nuts]

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...

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.