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[>]:)]

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.  [:)]

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.

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.

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.

How about flying an airplane?  Helicopter?  

Norm

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!

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]

Especially a comm. drivers license, which is now, primarily federal mandated....(nice, how the feds find thier way into your wallet!)

***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.

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...."

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.

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.

As global citizens, you all will be granted public transit as part of Sustainable Development and will no longer need privately owned motor vehicles.

Can I bring my assault rifles on the bus???? [:D]

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:



(Edited because I can't do bold within a quote.)

cont.



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].

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.  

What? I think you have ownership and restrictions on usage's that may cause harms to others (and thus be regulated) confused.



Right for the privilege? You don't have a right to operate your private property on public roads.



Children are not a possession. Again I think your confusing issues. Ownership is one thing but what your talking about is Sovereignty.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.