Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
2/23/2017 5:55:53 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 6/20/2001 3:02:54 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/20/2001 3:01:29 AM EST by Sweep]
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 3:29:29 AM EST
If it's a [b]right[/b] then can someone who's consistently failed their driving test continue to drive? Can I drive an eighteen wheeler even though I don't have a commercial license? If I can be permitted to operate the foot controls, does my 4 year old granddaughter have the right to steer the car on a public street? Eric The(exasperated)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 3:46:46 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/20/2001 3:45:01 AM EST by ARlady]
those tests and licenses are enacted to standardize the right to drive. so that everyone knows the rules of the road (the test) and that everyone is equally capable of taking proper responsibility for what might happen on the road (theoretically anyway, this is the licensing and insurance requirement.) all of the above are laws passed in the name of safety. yes, they restrict driving, but it's a right nonetheless. how is it any different from the 2nd amendment? most states require a license to carry and some even require a safety test. but just because Big Brother or the states might put some restrictions on it, that doesn't make it any less of a right. wouldn't you agree? driving a car is no less of a right than our RKBA. it's just a little bit more regulated, that's all. talk about infringement. [:)]
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 3:54:18 AM EST
Originally Posted By ARlady: driving a car is no less of a right than our RKBA. it's just a little bit more regulated, that's all. talk about infringement. [:)]
View Quote
Well one MAJOR difference is the RKBA is SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED in teh Constitution as a RIGHT. I haven't yet found that type of language re: driving (a car, a wagon, a buggy etc) What the Constitution DOES say is that rights NOT specifically enuerated fall under the jurisdiction of the states. (Amend 9 & 10) So, in summary, the US Constitution DOES NOT acknowledge your right to drive. However, if your states Constitution does so mention driving, then you have a Constitutionally guaranteed right.
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 3:57:59 AM EST
And there is a "right" to welfare. And there is a "right" to abortions. And there is a "right" to healthcare. And there is a "right" to be happy. And there is a "right" to have your rights read to you. And there is a "right" to have sex with consenting children. Yeah, there are a lot of things people think they have a "right" to do or have, simply because they want them. But in the end, the only "rights" we have are the restrictions on government power found in the constitution. If it ain't in there, then no matter how strongly you [i]feel[/i] you should have that "right," you don't have it.
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 4:04:27 AM EST
Essentially, this whole discussion is a problem of semantics - God-given rights as compared to state acknowledged rights. Both type of rights exist. The state CANNOT deny a man a God-given right. Things that we want to be our "rights" that are NOT God given are state regulated.
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 4:22:20 AM EST
How about flying an airplane? Helicopter? Norm
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 4:39:16 AM EST
Originally Posted By Avtomat: Yeah, there are a lot of things people think they have a "right" to do or have, simply because they want them. But in the end, the only "rights" we have are the restrictions on government power found in the constitution. If it ain't in there, then no matter how strongly you [i]feel[/i] you should have that "right," you don't have it.
View Quote
OMG you could not be more WRONG!!! The Constitution tells you basic rights it gives you nothing only tells you what you already have not GIVES. BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUION DOES NOT MEAN ITS NOT A RIGHT!
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 4:53:44 AM EST
State of n.y. specifically explains that having a license/driving a vehicle is a PRIVILEDGE....easily revoked for being a bad boy/girl.......[smoke]
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 4:55:43 AM EST
Especially a comm. drivers license, which is now, primarily federal mandated....(nice, how the feds find thier way into your wallet!)
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 5:22:46 AM EST
***And there is a "right" to have your rights read to you. This is not a right. Law Enforcement has a duty to inform you of your rights, if, and only if, they are going to question you about matters relevant to an offense you have been arrested for. If you got arrested for a traffic warrant, there is no requirement to read you your rights. The whole Miranda thing isn't so much about a new "right" created for persons arrested as it is a procedural rule for getting evidence admitted into court. There is no "right" to drive a motor vehicle on a public road or highway. Public roads are built, maintained and regulated with public money. The key word is "regulated." There have to be some standards if the roads are to be safe for travel. Without some legal authority to regulate traffic on public roads, like stop signs, speed limits and driver's licenses, the roads would be inherently unsafe. The is a constructive right to free movement in Constitution, but that right does not give someone the right to trespass in order to travel. Public roads are governed by necessary rules to insure safety. If you cannot or refuse to abide by those rules, you are, in effect, trespassing.
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 6:01:41 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 7:59:39 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 8:32:18 AM EST
The Constitution tells you basic rights it gives you nothing only tells you what you already have not GIVES
View Quote
The constitution does not "give" us rights, it restricts the power of government (in the pertinent sections). Notice the 1st amendment does not say "you have freedom of speech," it says "Congress shall make no law...."
BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUION DOES NOT MEAN ITS NOT A RIGHT!
View Quote
In the grand scheme of rhetoric, this may be true, but since a right is a restriction on government power (insofar as the constitution is concerned), and since no such restriction on the a "right" to drive exists, the constitution does not forbid such regulation.
Just because it's not listed in the Constitution does not mean it not a right, that's what Amenmant 9 is all about
View Quote
Of course, the 9th amendment was meant to apply only to the federal government, not the state government. In fact, for around (generally) a century, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states at all.
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 8:44:18 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 8:52:00 AM EST
As global citizens, you all will be granted public transit as part of Sustainable Development and will no longer need privately owned motor vehicles.
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 8:54:09 AM EST
Originally Posted By Imbrog|io: As global citizens, you all will be granted public transit as part of Sustainable Development and will no longer need privately owned motor vehicles.
View Quote
Can I bring my assault rifles on the bus???? [:D]
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 9:23:22 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/20/2001 9:23:50 AM EST by BostonTeaParty]
Avtomat, you are correct that the Constitution does not "give" us rights, but neither does it function to restrict the power of government, as you suggest. It grants certain powers to the government. The difference may be subtle, but it is nevertheless important. In my defense, I quote a portion of Federalist No. 84, by Alexander Hamilton:
It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes. Such was the Petition of Right assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign. Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government. But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired.
View Quote
(Edited because I can't do bold within a quote.)
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 9:25:06 AM EST
cont.
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights. On the subject of the liberty of the press, as much as has been said, I cannot forbear adding a remark or two: in the first place, I observe, that there is not a syllable concerning it in the constitution of this State; in the next, I contend, that whatever has been said about it in that of any other State, amounts to nothing. What signifies a declaration, that "the liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved"? What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? I hold it to be impracticable; and from this I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government. And here, after all, as is intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights.
View Quote
BTW, Sweep, I looked at the case citations you made, and they are interesting, worth a further look, particularly [i]Adams v. City of Pocatello[/i].
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 9:47:37 AM EST
Avtomat, you are correct that the Constitution does not "give" us rights, but neither does it function to restrict the power of government, as you suggest. It grants certain powers to the government. The difference may be subtle, but it is nevertheless important
View Quote
I understand the difference between the granting of power and restriction of power. Yes, the federal constitution grants power to the federal government. It does not grant power to states. It does restrict powers of states, however. I think, that in the context of my use (ie, distinquishing between affirmative rights and negative rights), the use of the term "restriction," in contrast to "grant," was justified, but if you must call foul, you may have it.
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 9:51:01 AM EST
Driving is a right. You have the right to drive absolutely anything you want and you do not need any kind of licence, registration, or any of that crap. BUT... If you want to drive on a road that is paid for by the government (or rather by the money they took from everybody) then you must comply with their guidelines for licensing, registration, speed limits, etc. There is nothing that prevents 12 year olds from driving cars out in a field or that prevents a person with multiple DUIs from driving a jeep out in the desert on a dirt road. Good lord, I wish that firearms were handled the same as vehicles. If they were, then I could own and shoot anything I wanted so long as I kept it on private property,
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 9:54:19 AM EST
Originally Posted By Hoplophile: Good lord, I wish that firearms were handled the same as vehicles. If they were, then I could own and shoot anything I wanted so long as I kept it on private property,
View Quote
EXACTLY. This puts the lie to these farthead Leftists that say guns should be registered becasue cars are registered. There is ABSOLUTELY NO registration requirement for car ownership. Would God the same were true for guns.
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 10:33:14 AM EST
Avtomat, I think we may see the issue mostly the same, and I agree that the idea of rights as restrictions on government power makes sense. I just didn't agree with application you made from that. We the people did not grant the federal government the power to restrict or regulate our right to travel (except perhaps as part of commerce). We also did not restrict the states from doing so as part of federal constitution, as you point out. But that does not imply that the states have the right to do so, it merely means that the federal constitution did not speak on the matter. Whether or not the people of the various states granted that power to their state governments (and whether such a grant would have been appropriate) is a separate matter. Again, I'm not not sure we really disagree fundamentally, just pointing out why I didn't like the way you expressed it originally.
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 10:57:13 AM EST
BostonTeaParty: There are 2 issues. The right to travel. Most people here would say that is one of the unlisted rights, and cannot be restricted. The other is the right to drive. Do you have a right to fly airplanes? Because that would be an easier claim to make. If you own a plane how can the government restrict your ability to use it in the atmospher that belongs to no person? Same thing with the (non-existent) right to drive. The roads were built by society. Society has the right to regulate the operation of private vehicles on PUBLIC roads.
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 11:07:01 AM EST
Originally Posted By Stokes: You do have the right to free, unrestricted travel in public areas. You do not have the right to drive. Your car is commercial, whether you're using it for business or not. You don't really own your car. If you did, you could change the number on your plate without asking them. If you did own your car, you wouldn't have to pay rent on it every year (their only $30 a year in Wa now!). If you owned your car, you wouldn't have to worry about emissions.
View Quote
What? I think you have ownership and restrictions on usage's that may cause harms to others (and thus be regulated) confused.
You gave up your right for the privilege when you signed that drivers license contract with the state.
View Quote
Right for the privilege? You don't have a right to operate your private property on public roads.
As a side note, you don't own your home, your children or any other possession in this country. If you did, you could change your street address, quit paying property taxes, change your name, change your kids name, or anything else. Why, again, did we get our children Social Security Numbers? Maybe so we can tattoo it on their forearms later...
View Quote
Children are not a possession. Again I think your confusing issues. Ownership is one thing but what your talking about is Sovereignty.
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 11:07:01 AM EST
Is driving a right or privilege well maybe both sides are partly correct. Lets look at it this way, there is no right to either own or drive a Motor Vehicle any more then there is a right to own a Color TV or Stereo if they are all luxury items or can be considered not necessary for daily life. When Cars were first available they were owned mostly by the rich who used them as status symbols since they were not very reliable and horses where still the normal mode of local transport. So at that time there was no right to have and use them. But as cars and trucks became more common they started to become an important part of our life. They in fact changed the way we lived and where we lived, we no longer had to live near where we worked and shopped. We could live out in the country and work in the city, yes we would have to drive to work maybe drive for over an hour just to get to our job but we could do it if we wished. And because we chose to live where there were no stores to buy our groceries we had to drive to buy our food and everything else we needed to live. But this is now how most of the people who do not live in the city live, and even they sometimes work in a different city then they live in. A car or truck is now a very real part of how we live, and since in most cases public transportation is not available not having a car is not only a big hardship but can not only force you to move to the city but can cause you to lose your job. And as to the effect on your job, some jobs require you to have your own car or truck, like if you are in the construction trades like a Structural Iron Worker you sometimes work where there are no busses or other public transportation and you may need to carry some of your tools and equipment with you. Which you can not do using public transportation. So is driving a right or privilege, the was I look at it, if traveling to work is a right, if going to the store to buy groceries is a right, if living your life as a free person who can chose where and how to live is a right, then having and driving a car or truck is a Right. We have become conditioned by big business and our government to live any place we want because we have a car and are no longer limited by how far we can walk or ride our horse. So driving is now a right since it is now something that is a necessity and is no longer a luxury. As a last thought how would everyone who thinks it is a privilege, get to work and live their lives if they were denied the use of their vehicle and tell the rest of us that not having vehicle would not have a major negative impact on your and your family's life. Sniper for Justice VINCE AUT MORIRE (Conquer or Die)
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 11:13:33 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 11:14:47 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/20/2001 11:14:50 AM EST by LARRYG]
Originally Posted By garandman: There is ABSOLUTELY NO registration requirement for car ownership. Would God the same were true for guns.
View Quote
I don't know where you arrive at that. There is a requirement in every state that you register an automobile. This was one of the powers left to the states as it was not listed as a federal power. For those that keep insisting that driving is a right, I suggest you read some of Clinton's anti-gun arguments. He compares licensing gun owners and registering guns to licensing drivers and registering cars. The argument against that has been that driving is not a right and having to have a license and registering the tool (the car) does not violate anyone's rights, but carrying and owning a gun is a right and therefore cannot be licensed nor can the tool (the gun) be registered. If you keep saying that car ownership and driving are rights, then the anti's can argue that if you will register and license one right (driving and owning a car), why won't you register the other (carrying and owning gun). You are falling right into their trap.
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 11:20:52 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 11:28:35 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 11:33:48 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 11:38:05 AM EST
Sweep, I'm particularly interested in three cases: Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579 State v. Quigg 114 So. 859 Chicago Motor Coach Company et al. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 NE 22 Problem is I can't find any of them online. An interesting site on Florida motor vehicle law: http://ddi.digital.net/~kenaston/Patr/Traffic.html I think some are making too much of a difference between the right to travel and the right to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways. It is true that they are not one and the same. But the former implies at least some degree of the latter. Both common sense and the court cases at which I have been looking make this pretty clear. Maybe some are being led astray by the fallacy that a right is by definition unrestricted (e.g., Larry G's concern about equating driving and bearing firearms). I am aware of no right that is unrestricted. The courts seem to talk, accurately I believe, about rights as those things which may be regulated but not arbitrarily denied by the legislature. (Of course the regulation must not have the effect of arbitrary denial.) My rights do not give me the right to abuse your rights. Because we live in a society, our rights must be regulated in order that we all can achieve the greatest enjoyment of those rights. Any regulation that is not to that end is wrong. Admitting that there can be some regulation or restriction is not the same as saying that any or all restriction is permissible or that the privilege is arbitrarily revocable.
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 11:38:14 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 11:40:52 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 11:44:08 AM EST
Originally Posted By LARRY G:
Originally Posted By garandman: There is ABSOLUTELY NO registration requirement for car ownership. Would God the same were true for guns.
View Quote
I don't know where you arrive at that. There is a requirement in every state that you register an automobile. .
View Quote
I can go down to my local dealership, plunk down $60K cash on a Porsche 911, load it onto a trailer, and tow it home WITHOUT signign ANY gov't documents, or obtaining any gov't approval whatsoever. And as long as I never drive it on public roads, it is competely legal for me to NEVER register it. AS such, there is NO REGISTRATION WHATSOEVER for OWNERSHIP of an automobile. If you want to compare ownership of a firearm to ownership of an automobile, there you have it. But the antis are FALSELY comparing use of a car on public roads to private ownership of a firearm when tehy say both should be registered. It is a dishonest tatic they are using, and its high time we called them on it.
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 11:45:34 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 11:47:56 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 11:48:41 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 11:56:17 AM EST
Sweep, I'm particularly interested in three cases: Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579 State v. Quigg 114 So. 859 Chicago Motor Coach Company et al. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 NE 22 Problem is I can't find any of them online.
View Quote
The reason you can't find them is because they are too old/worthless to waste time and money to put them online. You will have to go to a law library and look them up in old reporters. The language in these cases seem to be just dicta. Furthermore, general statements taken from old cases are not necessarily the law, and without the context of the case, are meaningless. Just because the text mentions "rights" "constitution" and "freedom" does not mean there are individual rights etc to drive around without government regulation. If these old cases were the law, then, based on that law, someone would have challenged whatever regulation whined about and had such regulation thrown out.
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 12:09:46 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/20/2001 12:08:13 PM EST by LARRYG]
Originally Posted By garandman: If you want to compare ownership of a firearm to ownership of an automobile, there you have it.
View Quote
Don't misunderstand. I'm not comparing them, just saying that the anti's do. I think car ownership and driver's licenses are not constitutional rights and cannot be compared to gun ownership, which is a right. As for not registering the car, I suppose you are right. But if you want to use it on public roads, it must be registered. Hey, a 911 ain't exactly an off road vehicle. I guess if you were going to race it on the track such as SCCA or ALMS, and never on a public road, there would be no registration requirement.
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 12:28:27 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/20/2001 12:26:13 PM EST by Sweep]
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 12:31:57 PM EST
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 12:41:16 PM EST
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 3:16:51 PM EST
Sweep, if you are interested, I now have the full court opinions for the three cases I cited earlier, courtesy of a law school friend. They are currently in Microsoft Word format. I haven't had a chance to read them yet, but I thought I'd share them with you as soon as I got them. Chicago Motor Coach Co. v. Chicago [url]http://mfast.home.texas.net/ftp/Doc3.doc[/url] State of Florida v. Quigg [url]http://mfast.home.texas.net/ftp/Doc4.doc[/url] Thompson v. Smith [url]http://mfast.home.texas.net/ftp/Doc5.doc[/url]
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 3:28:24 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/20/2001 3:29:31 PM EST by SGB]
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 4:52:12 PM EST
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 5:13:10 PM EST
Just ask the judge after your 4th ticket in one year or your DUI conviction. IT IS NOT A RIGHT if you are infringing on my personal safety.
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 5:17:25 PM EST
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 5:19:27 PM EST
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 5:34:23 PM EST
Great topic! I've been thinking about this issue for some time. By the way, I know someone who flies airplanes and has never had a pilot's license. He says you only need a license to fly in and out of certain airports, other than that, there are damn few regulations that he follows except filing a flight plan. He has his own little airport (dirt strip) and he does as he pleases. Sound familiar? The DEA came after him one time though. They suspected he was a drug smuggler. Hey, who don't they suspect these days? Interesting character--runs a skydiving school also. Crashed a plane once and walked away (engine failure). I'm ready to tear up my driver's license and vehicle registration, etc. if it becomes a movement. I'm sick of renting what I'm supposed to be the owner of. At the very least, what I'd like to see is a better system that can't be abused and continually used against us as a revenue tool. The states should butt the hell out. They do a crappy job of making sure people are roadworthy drivers. All they really do is ensure that they have a steady revenue stream coming in by setting speed limits ridiculously low, among other scams. Ideally, driver training should be handled by private insurance companies or other organizations. You buy insurance, they make sure you can drive. Make everyone learn to drive on a closed course with a skid car as part of the training. Same thing for those who want to ride motorcycles. We have private driver training now, it just needs to be expanded. BMW has started to do things like this with teen drivers--its a marketing ploy, but I hope it's one that catches on. You buy a car, you get free driver training from a professional driver as part of the package. With competing companies, you can choose which plan suits you best instead of having to live with the one-size-fits-all government solution. Imagine how much money the states could save if they shut down their DMV operations. Let private companies enforce the administrative crap. It would free up the police so they could deal with real motor vehicle crimes and accidents. It would also give them one less way to intrude upon our privacy. Is driving a right? I think it is. But it would be pointless if we had complete chaos on the roadways. Check out places like India if you want to see what that's like. Nobody obeys traffic rules there and thousands of people are killed each year. Their potholes are the size of ponds, by the way. We don't want that. But neither can we continue to allow governments to call the shots and tighten the nooses around our necks.
Link Posted: 6/20/2001 5:40:55 PM EST
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top