Doing Away With Driver's Licenses

[redcliffsw]

Ga. Lawmaker Proposes Doing Away With Driver's Licenses

http://www.cbsatlanta.com/news/26675368/detail.html

[Jo McDonald]

I think this guy is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out there!!!!
There are millions of people who SHOULD NOT be behind a wheel of a motorized vehicle.  So, of course drivers should be licensed.
  He is one scary individual!!

[srkruzich]

Actually Jo,
Drivers licenses or the lack there of do not stop drivers from driving.  He is RIGHT in that it is unconstitutional to prohibit on the roads and highways that are provided by their government for that purpose.  It is the Right of Locomotion.  Drivers licenses were not required of individuals until 1910 when drivers licenses were required only of chauffers or Commercial operators.  In 1913 New Jersey required everyone in NJ to have one.
It didn't happen til after ww2 when the rest of the country decided to jump in on this cash cow. 

[Jo McDonald]

I agree --- gov't intervention is the pits, but I'm sorry Steve, I still believe that drivers having to acquire a license, makes me feel safer when I am traveling.  I see people every day that absolutely should NOT be allowed to drive.

  I'm old, so, that is just my opinion.  :-)) but I'm entitled to it, so by golly I exercise it.
 

                                Peace....my friend!

[srkruzich]

I agree --- gov't intervention is the pits, but I'm sorry Steve, I still believe that drivers having to acquire a license, makes me feel safer when I am traveling.  I see people every day that absolutely should NOT be allowed to drive.

ROTFL yeah I too exercise my opinion!    One point you mentioned..... You said you see people every day hat should not be Allowed to drive yet they have a license you know! 

I'm old, so, that is just my opinion.  :-)) but I'm entitled to it, so by golly I exercise it.
 

                                Peace....my friend!

[Varmit]

Traveling may be a Right, but driving is not.  Its real simple, you want to drive you get a liscense.  Now that may not stop all irresponsible behavior, but it does stop a majority.  I think regular vision, hearing, and even reflex testing should be done with more enforcement.  I think that this is one area that gov't rules should be applied.

[srkruzich]

Traveling may be a Right, but driving is not.  Its real simple, you want to drive you get a liscense.  Now that may not stop all irresponsible behavior, but it does stop a majority.  I think regular vision, hearing, and even reflex testing should be done with more enforcement.  I think that this is one area that gov't rules should be applied.

THats not true varmit.  To travel the roads today, you cannot just simply walk down them. Try that on a interstate and you get a ticket or in jail.  The constitution is clear, that it is a right.   Barring any form of land transportation is not allowed. it doesn't matter if your walking or riding a horse or driving.
"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.)

"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 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 179.

It could not be stated more conclusively that citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restrictions (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:

"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 US 116, 125.

"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move 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 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293.

"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S., F.2d 486, 489.

[Patriot]

In reading the articles here, in the 'Honkies' thread and others, and reading the replies, there seems to be a theme appearing.  That theme would be that the Constitution must get smaller as government gets bigger in our desire for it (the govt) to somehow 'protect' or us from something that 'might' be harmful (bad drivers, sugary/salty food, gasoline) or offensive (groups with opposing or even radical views, Christians, Jews). Talk about being judgmental!  In these cases, who's to judge what is offensive or too dangerous?  The government (read bureaucrats)?  Friends, that will likely lead to totalitarianism.

How can some of you be so blind?  Did you not grow out of mommy's and daddy's arms to become independent adult thinkers?  Responsible for yourself, and not relying on someone else to take care of you.  Why, now, do you pick and choose areas where you seem to want to give over your liberty & be willing to give away my liberty in the hope that some government policy, law or regulation will somehow protect you & replace your need to fend for yourself?

I suggest that the words of a man who helped give us the Republic that served to make America the prosperous & dominant world leader it became say it best.....

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
          Benjamin Franklin, "Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor", November 11, 1755

This isn't just about some drunk nitwit with or without a driver's license or a bunch of wing nuts having a private meeting at a privately owned hotel.  This is about our belief that we should be independently free from government control to enjoy to our life, liberty and to pursue happiness!  This is about our strength of personal character... are nitwits and wing nuts able to have the same liberties as the rest of us expect, or not?  I say, that as long as the driver of a car or an idiot with an ideology doesn't impinge others liberties, harm innocent kids, damage/steal property of others, or mess with others lives then leave him to his own demise.

In the end, the Constitution doesn't really get smaller, we just get farther from it.  And when we are far enough from it there will be a replacement.  Not likely one you'll enjoy living under.  Remember frogs:  Inch by inch.  Great nations are not destroyed by external forces. They are destroyed from within by internal structures that rot from poor care & foundations weakened by a lack of maintenance.

[Varmit]

You hear alot about how this is unconstitutional or that is unconstitutional,l yet seldom does the constitution mention anything about the law in question.  For example, can anyone here list the admendment that covers driving??

Another thing, how is it that some say "we want limited or no governmental interference in our lives" then go on to say that a law was deemed unconstitutional by a governmental body?

And what is with the unwritten "either/or" clauses in almost every argument presented here?  Either we are going to be governed or we're not.  I mean, if we are going to say that drivers licenses are unconstitutional because the govenment cannot interfere with a persons "right" to drive then ALL traffic laws need to be abolished because they interfere don't they? 

And just because a person is willing to say that, yes we do need rules, laws, and regulations, in certain areas doesn't mean they are giving away their liberty.  It simply means, that as a civilized society they recognize the fact that there needs to be a certin set of rules that folks live by. 

As for quoting Ben Franklin, I find it curious that a man that would talk about liberty and freedom would own slaves.

[srkruzich]

You hear alot about how this is unconstitutional or that is unconstitutional,l yet seldom does the constitution mention anything about the law in question.  For example, can anyone here list the admendment that covers driving??

5th amendment, 14th amendment under the equal protection clause,

"The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel along the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some vehicle." House v. Cramer, 1 12 N. W. 3; 134 Iowa 374 (1907).
Theres a host of court decisions supporting this, as well.  ITs even debatable in the licensing of commercial drivers.

Most imporantly its exactly the same thing as licensing firearms.  No difference.

Another thing, how is it that some say "we want limited or no governmental interference in our lives" then go on to say that a law was deemed unconstitutional by a governmental body?

And what is with the unwritten "either/or" clauses in almost every argument presented here?  Either we are going to be governed or we're not.  I mean, if we are going to say that drivers licenses are unconstitutional because the govenment cannot interfere with a persons "right" to drive then ALL traffic laws need to be abolished because they interfere don't they? 

pretty much it is so.  THeonly laws needed are the ones to handle traffic in orderly mannor.  Traffic lights ect....

And just because a person is willing to say that, yes we do need rules, laws, and regulations, in certain areas doesn't mean they are giving away their liberty.  It simply means, that as a civilized society they recognize the fact that there needs to be a certin set of rules that folks live by. 

You do not have to give up inalienable rights to have rules of conduct.   

As for quoting Ben Franklin, I find it curious that a man that would talk about liberty and freedom would own slaves.

WEll i'll take Ben Franklin a slave owner over what we have today.   They had more integrity in their little pinky than the leaders of today do.