straight out of websters, "any of the fundamental RIGHTS common to all persons under a modern constitutional government"
Danke, mein fuhrer for das priveleges....
[x]

sorry, the definition of privelege...
and my german sux cuz I aint german.

Answer a question for me if you would, SGB. Are you of the opinion that an officer has a right to stop any driver at any time for the sole purpose of checking on the status of that driver's driving priveleges? In other words, no other probable cause is neccessary to stop a driver than the fact that they are driving.

FMCDH
Semper Fidelis
Jarhead out.

-----------------
"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe that they are free."
--Von Goethe

"...reserved to the States respectively,..." DL's are issued and controlled by the States. Not the Federal Govt. The tenth puts it onto the States before the People. I gotta go with a privelege governed by the State.

Well I do own my home the gov't may have valid safety and health reason to enforce building and zoning codes. Those shanty towns go up in a second.

I don't think I can plagarize something/someone I have never paid attn to. The arguements may sound similar, but there is a basic difference in the devices. If you have a gun in your house am I effected by the gun? NO. But I am effected by the hundreds of other motorist I drive by/with everyday.  Yes most of the driving I do is on public roads, roads paid for by the people. I doubt most of us use firearms in a publicly held area.

As per the 9th amendment, rights aren't limited to those specifically listed in the Constitution. So, driving is a right, concealed carry without a permit is a right, etc. Someone else hit the nail right on the head earlier - the gov't has been telling us for so long that most of our rights are really privileges granted through the beneficence of the gov't and subject to denial on a whim at any time, that now we actually believe them.

As far as the 10th amendment, and the states being higher precedence than the people when it comes to holding powers, I say that the states have powers but no rights, and people have rights but no powers. What powers do you and I have? Voting? No, it's a right. The power to foce the gov't to try us by jury? Nope, that's a right as well.

Finally, for the person who made the argument that driving isn't a right because then we'd have to let 5-year-olds and 105-year-old blind grannies drive: WRONG! Nobody will deny that we have the right to vote, yet voting being a right doesn't mean we have to allow 5-year-olds to vote, nor other people who don't have the mental facilities to undertake the solemn responsibility of voting. Driving, like voting, is a right of citizens until they're shown to be mentally and/or physically incapable of exercising that right in a serious manner. Driver's licensing, vehicle registration, and most speed limits (school and residential zones are exceptions) are merely revenue sources for the state, and not there primarily for public safety.

All of the above. Levels of government differ only in degree - the smaller ones want to exercise just as much control over you as the federal gov't does, they just don't have the money to do everything they'd like.  




They agree on one thing - that they need to be in total control. Just go to a city council meeting one night and see if your councilors don't go out of their way to find new things to regulate, for no other reason than they've been given the power to introduce bills regulating things and feel like they're not doing their jobs if they don't make something else illegal. You can turn on C-SPAN and see the exact same thing going on in Congress, only on a larger scale.



How can the meaning of "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" be twisted or spun to mean anything besides "your rights are not limited to those listed in the Constitution" or something along those lines?


I think we started having problems when people began to be told that the Supreme Court "interprets" the Constitution. This is not so - the Constitution says what it says and isn't subject to interpretation (i.e., changes of meaning.) The Supreme Court APPLIES the Constitution. The best analogy I can come up with is units of weight and measure. If you go to the deli and buy 1 pound of Black Forest ham, you're using a known unit (1 pound) to define a currently unknown unit (the pile of ham slices the clerk is setting on the scale.) The clerk applies the known unit to the unknown unit, determines whether the unknown unit is less than, equal to, or more than the known unit, and makes any necessary changes to the unknown unit to bring it into agreement with the known unit. The known unit isn't subject to interpretation; in other words, another deli clerk can't say "what used to be called 1 pound is now 2 pounds" and charge you twice as much for the amount of ham it takes to balance the weight previously known as "1 pound." The same goes for the Constitution - it's the known unit against which all unknown quantities are compared. As such, it can't be changed by judicial "interpretation" since that would be akin to the deli clerk "intepreting" 1 pound on the scale as being 2 pounds.

Troy hit the nail on the head, as well as Imbrog|io about the original intent of licensing was for commercial use of the roadways only.  Over the winter there were extensive threads on this over at Frugals.  The author of the thread was able to cite many court cases that basically stated use of public roads using the general conveyence of the day is a [b]right[/b].

I think its just another one of those things that society has taken for granted and allowed the 'all-knowing' government to take over - less personal responsibility and more government control.  Hey, 'its for the children', remember?

I disagree.  Your license can be revoked only for cause (much like your freedom, or any other right).  If it were a true privilige, Kalifornia would have banned driving years ago.



Using that logic, surfing the internet is a privilige.  I heard the same tired privilige line in HS drivers Ed.  Didn't buy it then, ain't gonna start now.

Students in FL who drop out of school before age 17 or 18 can have their DL suspended.  The state passed a law.  If it's a privilige, why did they have to pass legislation?  

Eddie

I looked up a mortgage site by keying allodial(www.homeowners.com). They say, and I think they know about titling/deeds, that a person cannot hold an allodial title to land in the US. They say that governments can, I'm thinking US embassy in Moscow has an allodial title. They say that Allodial titles amount to a tax protest.

The SCOTUS decided that driving is a privilege in appx 87-88 lat time I heard, I don't have the sighting. So no matter what everyone thinks, those that get to make that decision decided.

LS1Eddie: Yes you need cause to revoke a DL, but most states administrativley suspned DL's for DUI. They allow the person to contest the suspension. If it was a right you could not have you a right taken away without due process. Dl's are also suspended for failuer to pay citations. Again they suspend the DL and send a notice no hearing unless the person contest the suspension. If it was a right how could they make you pay for a DL? or test you prior to issueing it? or require that you be certain age before you start driving? why do they need a law to suspend a truants DL if it is not a privilege? Well the state mus right down all it's rules and follow those rules they can not arbitrarily decide how/why/when/how long a DL will be suspened, that doesn't make it less of a privilege.

Easy - by first telling you it's not a right, just like they do with firearms, then making you pay to exercise your "privilege." We've just been conditioned to believe that it's a privilege for so long that now we do believe it. And by your logic, voting must not be a right because they require that you be a certain age before you can vote.

If we have the right to travel freely in this country, then we must also have the right to use the conveyances of travel without government interference (excepting privately-owned conveyances like airliners and trains, of course.)

Lastly, if we do indeed have a right to travel, do toll roads infringe upon that right? Don't pay the 50 cents or whatever and see if you travel that road for long!

Is the above statement unclear? You have a right to drive any motor vehicle anytime you want at any age. As long as you do it on private property. The whole licensing thing was a question of PUBLIC road. Society paid for them so society gets to regulate there usage.

Yes the right to vote is different. It deals with a citizens choice in deciding representation. It is the only right that lists an age. All other rights are not age sensitive. Freedom of speech applies to 5 year olds, Right to counsel in criminal matters 12 yr olds,

If the right to drive existed in the unlisted other rights then there would be no age min/max attached to that right. There would also be no competency testing or insurance requirements.

So if the SCOTUS decides at some future time that owning a firearm is a privilege and not a right because the 2nd amendment only aplies to members of the militia as defined by the most current USC, you'll agree with them and support their decision? I say again - anything that's not SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the Constitution as NOT being a right of the people, i.e., is listed as a power of government, is a right of the people.

I consider it a privilege.

For those who see it as a right and want to rebel, I suggest you discard your DL.

HEY SGB, what about SWEEPS POST !!!!!
[x]

it was on my drivers license test which I got a 100 on the written part.
according to the dmv driving is a privilege, and can be revoke. their is no law that says that you have a right to drive and with some of the assholes out on the road I think we can all say that is not such a bad idea.

by the way friends don't let friends drive drunk

Why the F did I have to pay those turnpike things in FL before?