North Dakota’s Supreme Court said that you implicitly consent to taking a blood test when you get into a car there. It added that you aren’t really forced to take the blood test — you just get convicted of a crime if you don’t. In a sense, the court was saying that driving is a privilege, not a right.

The government can’t condition the exercise of a constitutional right on the waiver of another one. The reason you can be searched before getting on an airplane is that flying isn’t recognized as a fundamental constitutional right.

Is driving a constitutional right? The Supreme Court has never said so, although it has recognized a constitutional right to travel. In today’s United States, especially if you live someplace without public transportation (like most of North Dakota), you can’t really travel if you can’t drive.

Making consent to an invasive blood draw the condition of driving seems clearly unconstitutional. As for the assertion that you don’t have to take the test, that’s even weaker: The very definition of being required to do something is that you’ll be convicted of a crime if you don’t.



Drunk drivers and constitutional rights

Getting a license has fine print.  Just because a car became something most people use everyday, doesn't mean it is a right to own or have one.


Health care isn't a right either.  but the government likes to tell people it is.

Driving is a privilege...how much it is regulated is based off the representatives that me, you, and our predecessors elected.

Not IMO.

You have the right to travel through or to to any otherwise unrestricted (private property, etc.) area.  How you get there is on you.

There is no such thing as a Constitutional Right. You are born a free man. You are not a subject.

You have the right to keep and bear arms.  Just not the most common modern means of doing so.  You can make your own from raw materials though.

So do not get a licence, just drive with out one?

If cars were never invented,do you think we would have licenses to ride horses and drive wagons?

Licenses are money and control-I pay every 5 years to renew mine,even though it's been over 30 years since I took the test and passed.

And as I'm sure we have all witnesses,having a license doesn't make you a good driver.

No one forces you to live further than walking/biking distance from work and the store.

Would you drive any different without one?(maybe more carefully so as not to get pulled over/get jacked up by the State)



ETA-Same with a concealed weapons permit.I have mine,only because of the consequences of getting caught carrying without one.If I didn't have a carry permit,I wouldn't turn into a killing/raping machine.

No.  

Odds are that those who are able to pass a driving test will be better drivers overall than those who weren't able to pass. Nothing is 100 percent, but that doesn't mean the license is worthless.

How many people don't get their license because they simply can't pass the test?

I personally don't know anyone without a license,or that failed so many times they gave up.

" if you don't provide it for me it is a right"
No, just no.

Feeding your kids?

You only have a right to travel if you ride a horse.

Don't leave me hanging bro, like you always do, go ahead

Driving is a privilege not a right . At least in Texas .

should be, no different than riding a horse.

Well, you could be one of those people who don't own property, don't work, but yet can still ride their bicycle down the middle of the road....



The gov force you to pay taxes on Military or Schools, but you don't have access to the hardware to play with nor are you as an adult allowed to attend an elementary school that you paid for.

Or walk, or ride a bike, or take a bus, the subway, a plane, a taxi...

i have nothing to contribute

i am just here to watch GD freetards wax philosophically about their liberty and rights

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

What's wrong with walking?

I wonder how all of this will work out with self driving cars

nope.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

the way it was explained to me is that roads have been around for ages.  the usual methods of conveyance have also been around for ages.  Cars came on the scene and were an unusual and rare method of conveyance, and that is how the govt got its foot in the door to regulating them.  nobody really got around to making them the usual and accepted normal means of conveyance.

so now you are required to fly a flag fore and aft, marker lights, navigate around islands and load/unload at docks.  right of ways, etc.  you sign on to all the laws when you sign for a drivers license and register your car.

Driving is a right. removed...krp

Places where there is no mass transit

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom,it is the argument of tyrants,it is the creed of slaves.....................

Is there a right to walk, bike, skate, etc.?


Is the right to free speech limited to whispers?

Let us remember what our "rights" actually are:
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

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 offence 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.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 
agreed


the right to travel freely is a basic human right, it just isn't an enumerated right.

Owning a car is just as much as a right as owning any other property.  You have a right to property.   Certainly one has a right to drive on the roads that he helps pay for.


However, people often confuse rights with entitlements.  Just because you have a right to do something, you are not entitled to endanger or harm others while exercising that right.  You have the RTKBA for example, but you are not entitled to walk down the street shooting randomly and can be arrested for that.  Drunk driving is the same principle. If your actions put your fellow citizens at risk, then you should be stopped and investigated and fined or jailed, right or no.

Logical fallacy.  The purpose of taxation for the military is to "provide for the common defense."   Not being able to play with the hardware does not interfere with the intent of the military nor infringes on your right to share in the common defense.  It would be a violation of your rights if the rule was "we will tax you for the military but they will not participate in your defense."  The intent and purpose of the roads and why they tax you for them is for you to drive on them.

In Alabama, when I was growing up, the legal driving age was 14 to and from school.

Also, it's super difficult to lose your driver's license in most parts of the state.

The idea that something needs to be regulated because its rare or unusual is founded in fear and jealousy.

The problem is that pesky "government compelling interest" part.

Orderly doesn't have to be cradle to grave everything licensed,mandated,taxed,regulated,etc.............

I think you mispelled du.com in your browser.

?

Bag is right.

Of course we all have a right to move freely throughout the country. But if you want to do so in a car on a tax payer funded road then that can certainly be subject to regulation.

If you could get permission to cross private property in your vehicle without driving on public roads then yeah, could have an argument for not being subject to those regulations.

the 9th Amend has your answer:

You can drive on private property anytime without a license. Public roads are owned by the government, and you have to follow their rules.

so the it's privilege people would be OK with giving blood any time a cop has a reasonable suspicion you might be drunk and in possession of a firearm?  If you refuse you lose your guns and go to jail, you guys OK with that?

Just because a state regulates driving doesn't mean I should have to give up my 4th 5th, and 6th amendment rights to be able to travel from one place to another.

Because the method of conveyance has changed doesn't mean we should have to give up all of our constitutional rights.  No different than musket vs m16.

So it's OK for people to walk/ride bikes/rollerblade on the roads?

My property line extends to the center of the road-it was the same in NY.That means I'm paying taxes on the stretch of road in front of my place.

well, to be fair, they were injuring/maiming/killing quite a few horses and peds.