From: Chas on 3 Mar 2007 13:14
> "Of course the Law declares it a privilege"
> Where do you get that? That's one cite I was asking for.
It may be extended or withdrawn by fiat- a privilege, not a Right.
> "as the purpose of government is to extend government, the purpose of
> the Law is to expand the purview of the Law."
> And where do you get that? That was the second cite I asked for.
It needs no 'authority'- it's self-evident, sufficient to deem to be true
for purposes of our discussion.
> And now maybe you could explain how "stare decisis" is applicable to
> what you had to say.
You seem to depend on previous authorities to justify your position- and
lean on only those authorities you deem credible.
For instance, I think that our Rights derive from 'Life, Liberty and the
Pursuit of Happiness'- two of which apply directly to driving [the last two,
if it's eluding you].
I never have understood you guys that prefer to limit freedoms rather than
From: k_flynn on 3 Mar 2007 14:34
On Mar 3, 10:25 am, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2:05 am, k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote:
> > On Mar 2, 11:05 pm, Ashton Crusher <H...(a)nowhere.net> wrote:
> > > Driving is a right for private citizens. The courts have so ruled.
> > Then you should have no trouble providing the court case citation.
> My gosh, rights aren't determined by the courts. You have rights
> just for the fact that you were born, i.e. "inalienable rights".
> Courts can uphold law which violate those rights, but it doesn't mean
> the rights don't exist.
Yo, Larry Bud, read what AC wrote: "The courts have so ruled."
I asked him for the cite to those cases. He's the one making the
In any case. Courts interpret the behaviors that fall under the rights
that the government protects. In the case of driver licensing and
registration, courts long ago held and have upheld since 1915 that the
right of public safety and welfare permit the states to license
From: Snap Whipcrack.............. on 3 Mar 2007 15:09
> In article <1172806269.072397.151900(a)v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> "proffsl" <proffsl(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>> Our States are lying to us.
> Not this again. The only liar around here is you, proffy.
>> Driving is not a privilege.
> Yes it is.
>> Driving is a
> No it isn't.
If walking on the sidewalk is a right then so too is driving on the highway.
From: Chas on 3 Mar 2007 15:45
>In the case of driver licensing and
> registration, courts long ago held and have upheld since 1915 that the
> right of public safety and welfare permit the states to license
That would be the 'compelling State's interest' in authorizing something
otherwise unConstitutional, neh?
It was ruled an exception to the unfettered exercise of a Right- as well as
being tailored primarily towards the operation of commercial vehicles,
considering the year of implementation.
And that's the crux of the matter; not whether there's an unbroken history
of trammeling on our rights under the rubric of Compelling State's Interest,
but whether that continues to square with our Constitutional guarantees in
our social contract.
Permission to drive has mogged into a de facto adult I.D. card which must be
updated frequently, compulsory insurance only provided by private
corporations, loss of due process rights in 'traffic' court questions over
$20, the 4th Amend. questions, probable cause,.....
Perhaps a 'good idea' in the beginning; not so much anymore- particularly in
light of the opportunities for abuse-by-government, ranging from 'speed
traps' to 'contraband checks'.
From: k_flynn on 3 Mar 2007 20:09
On Mar 3, 1:45 pm, "Chas" <chascleme...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> <k_fl...(a)lycos.com> wrote
> >In the case of driver licensing and
> > registration, courts long ago held and have upheld since 1915 that the
> > right of public safety and welfare permit the states to license
> > drivers.
> That would be the 'compelling State's interest' in authorizing something
> otherwise unConstitutional, neh?
Not at all. The mechanism for doing so actually is *in* the
> It was ruled an exception to the unfettered exercise of a Right- as well as
> being tailored primarily towards the operation of commercial vehicles,
> considering the year of implementation.
The Hendrick case to which I referred was not concerning the operation
of a commercial vehicle so, no, you're incorrect.