Doing Away With Driver's Licenses

[Varmit]

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Nope, No mention of driving privledges.

14th Amendment
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article

Again, no mention of driving or driving privledges.
I find it funny that as a Americans we holler and praise about the constitution and how it limits gov't.  Yet we rely on a panel of 9 people that are appointed by the government, to tell us what the constitutional limits of the government are.  Espcially when you consider that their decisions can be flipped-flopped depending on who sits on the panel.  Its all a scam.

[srkruzich]

I'm not going to argue with you on it Varmit, the constitution is quite clear. The Government cannot enact licensing on a inalienable right of life liberty and pursuit of happiness.  Right to locomotion includes foot, horse, buggy bicycle, and car.  It doesn't matter what mode of transportation you choose to pursue happiness or exercise your right to liberty. 

The wording of Right of Locomotion was left as it is because they knew new things would be created to travel with and they did not wish to relegate it to one specific mode. 

I can tell ya one thing, if i choose not to have a license, no one will make me stop travelling in anything i choose to do so. 

[Varmit]

Well, I'll tell you what, if you're going to post about specific admendments at least read them first. 

[srkruzich]

Well, I'll tell you what, if you're going to post about specific admendments at least read them first. 

I have "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" covers it quite well.
also
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

To remove a inalienable right, you must be tried and convicted as a felon.  To remove property from you, they have to go to court to show a constitutional reason for removal, to restrict your movement or liberty requires a felony conviction. 
They cannot force you to give up a constitutional right by requiring you to get permission to travel.   To do so would require them to take each and everyone of us and try us under due process of law to strip us of liberty and pursuit of happiness. 

[Patriot]

I'm not going to argue with you on it Varmit, the constitution is quite clear.

Face it, constitutional understanding, extrapolation, reasoning & application aren't qualities found among many in our country.  Especially when doing these things with accuracy requires familiarity with & a good understanding of other founding principles and or supporting sources (i.e. Declaration of Independence, Federalist Papers, Supreme Ct. findings and clarifications, etc.). 

Some seem to think the Constitution was written in a vacuum.  It wasn't.  Nor is it a 'living' document that changes with the whims of each new generation.  To apply principles like liberty & pursuit of happiness and limited federal government to constitutional evaluation of various issues at various times requires reason and understanding... understanding not just of isolated words but conceptual understanding of the Constitution, the stated intents of the founders who wrote it, our governmental system, SC evaluations over time, the documents that expressed the foundations for the Constitution.   As for reason... she seems to be in generally short supply these days.

When it comes to applying these principles to issues generally under the purview of individual sovereign states (like driver's licenses), clear, reasoned understanding become even more critical.  Using simplistic arguments like 'the words aren't in there' seem to be  nothing more than excuses for laziness in the arenas of diligent study, reasoned thinking and conceptual understanding. 

[Patriot]

I find it funny that as a Americans we holler and praise about the constitution and how it limits gov't.  Yet we rely on a panel of 9 people that are appointed by the government, to tell us what the constitutional limits of the government are.  Espcially when you consider that their decisions can be flipped-flopped depending on who sits on the panel.  Its all a scam.[/b]

You have expressed disdain for our form & structure of government.  If you've got a better plan, let's hear it.  Shall we entertain a pure democracy with a popular referendum on every issue?  Shall we do that state by state, or shall we abolish the states and just have one big pot?  Maybe we could get the entire world population on board (kind of a one world kum ba yah thing). Perhaps a theocracy like Iran, or a Kingdom like Saudi Arabia, or a Dictatorship like Rwanda.  Or perhaps your brand of rugged individualism would be better served by ungoverned anarchy such as we see in most of Somalia. 

So, what's it gonna be... understand accept & work with it, fix/replace it, or just incessantly bitch and whine about it?


 

[thatsMRSc2u]

I had a view typed out but deleted it because.......well I reckon we all know why I'm not going to bother

[Varmit]

Just so I have this straight...driving is a Right, not a privledge. Therefore, anyone and everyone should be allowed to drive without hinderance of any kind.  No age limits, no physcial testing of any kind, no nothing.  Just get in and go...

The "life, liberty,  property w/out due process" argument can be applied to just about anything.  

As for the many types of "understanding" required to dicipher the constitution...please.  I don't need a piece of paper to tell me what rights I have.  You talk about the founders like they were some kind of saints.  How many people did they kill or how many deaths did they cause in their pursiut of their constitutional utopia?  They are held up as icons of liberty and freedom yet they brought in slaves by the boat load.  The gov't they established slaughtered people by the thousands through direct combat, starvation, and diease.  They looked at anything that wasn't a white male as inferior.  And in case you've forgotten the Constitution as originally written only applied to white males.  

Am I "incessantly bitching" or "whinning about it"??  No. I'm being compeletly honest about, something few on here actually have the balls to do.  
And by the way, before you go pointing fingers you might want to check a mirror, and do a little of your own research when it comes to who is expressing "disdain" for "our form and structure" of gov't.  Seems to me that I'm not the only one here with complaints as to how our gov't does things.  Case in point...about the last few hundered topics posted.

You asked "whats it gonna be"...simple. Tear the whole damn thing down and start over.  There is no fixing what this country has become. 

[Patriot]

Yes I would argue that driving is a right not to be infringed without due process.  I believe Steve has made the case for safety controls.

I don't think highlighting current events that stray from the principles of liberty under the rule of law is as much a 'bitch' as it is a wake up call for a course correction and a return to those principles by people who have a vested interest preserving that liberty for themselves as well as for those, like you, who exercise those very liberties to advocate the destruction of the system that guarantees them. 

No, maybe you don't need a piece of paper to define your rights.  Of course, in a civil society, it's helpful if all members of that society are living with the same understandings.  Of course, your self derived & determined rights could well come into conflict with another in society whose self determined rights included taking a shot at your kids every time they passed by.  Given the nature of man, government is a necessary evil.

Complaints abound, to be sure.  However, most who complain seem more concerned about the loss of our system, not fomenting the destruction of it as you advocate.  You seem to be the primary advocate of hatred for the form & structure, most who post here advocate for a more careful exercise of the powers granted to government by the governed. 

[Varmit]

Do I advocate the destruction of our current system??  In short...damn skippy! 

Our current system doesn't guarantee our liberities, in fact just the oppisite.  Our current system exists to secure power, position, and wealth for those who have it.  Our votes don't mean shit, our voices go unheard, and our pockets are continually raped for the benefit of a few.  We have been sold the illusion that, here in America, liberty abounds and freedom is for everyone.  Yet we pass laws stating that marriages must be defined by the state, you cannot practice your religion in a public place, your childs education must conform to state standards, individual expression is to be shunned in exhange for the herd mentality, etc, etc, etc.

Our gov't does not derive its power from the people.  Never has.  Our gov't holds its power of the heads of the people like a hammer that threatens to drop at the slightest provaction.  Case in point, the IRS.  You get into a serious argument with the gov't and the first thing they do is seize or freeze your assets.  What ever happened to due process? 

The constitution may not have been written in a vaccum, and may not be a living document, and it may not change with each generation, but at the same time it doesn't mean a damn thing where the gov't is concerned.  What it is, is a pacificer.  So long as the gov't can say, "look the supereme court approved it, its constitutional" they can do whatever they want.  And whats worse, is that the people will buy it because they don't see or won't see the illusion behind the smokescreen.