Civics U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets

Hello Tackleberry,

Thank you for your comment.

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

Obviously it advises the people have rights even if they aren’t specifically spelled out. It does not nullify the individual state’s right to regulate traffic with the creation of statute as granted through the 10th amendment.

MY RESPONSE: You are correct. The ninth amendment teaches us that the individual has additional Constitutional rights not expressly enumerated in the Constitution. But, those unenumerated Constitutional rights cannot be enforced until they are recognized as Constitutional rights by the courts. You are also correct in that the ninth amendment does not deprive the states of their own Constitutional rights to regulate traffic.

YOUR COMMENT: What ‘right to travel’ types are advocating is anarchy. Drunk? They have the right to travel. Unlicensed and blind? Right to travel. Uninsured and run into someone else's car? Right to travel. Get my point? Anarchy. This is why the 10th is there.

MY RESPONSE: Amateur legal theorists who claim that they are not required to have a driver's license on the grounds that they have a Constitutional "right to travel" actually misunderstand the nature of the "right to travel". These amateurs mistakenly believe that the "right to travel" is the same thing as the "right to drive a motor vehicle without a driver's license". But, this is not so. The Constitutional "right to travel" is merely the judicially recognized right (ninth amendment) of a citizen of one state to go to a different state and be treated like any other citizen of that other state. So, the "right to travel" is in the nature of the "right to equal protection of the laws". The right to travel has nothing to do with driving a motor vehicle (much less driving a motor vehicle without a license). A person can exercise their "right to travel" INTERSTATE by walking, bicycling, riding a horse, taking a bus, plane, ship or train or as a passenger in a motor vehicle driven by a person with a license to drive it.

And, I agree with your point about anarchy. If there was such a thing as a Constitutional "right to drive a motor vehicle without a license" (and there is not), a blind person could drive a motor vehicle as he/she pleased, a toddler could lawfully drive (whether or not he/she could see over the dash board or reach the brake peddle), a five-time, habitual DUI offender could rack up a sixth offense, while drinking from an open container of Scotch Whiskey, while driving backwards, travelling the wrong way down an interstate, at 100 miles per hour, while steering from the back seat, using only his feet.

Great comment,

Snoop

 

Hello Airtime,

YOUR COMMENT: Sadly, licenses and permits too often are when the government takes a right away from you and then sells it back to you.

MY RESPONSE: This same argument is often repeated, but it is fatally flawed. It presupposes that EVERY ACTIVITY is a "RIGHT". But, this is not so.

The supreme court has held that a [constitutionally-protected] RIGHT cannot be converted to a privilege & sold. But, most people do not know what this actually means. It does you no good to know a rule of law if you are unable to apply it to a particular activity.

APPLICATION:

Step One. Determine whether the activity in question is REALLY a TRUE constitutionally-protected RIGHT?

Example One: In the first amendment, the constitution EXPRESSLY states that FREE SPEECH is a CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED RIGHT.

So, under the law, the RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH may not be converted to a privilege and licensed and sold BECAUSE THAT PARTICULAR RIGHT REALLY IS A CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED RIGHT.

The same is true with respect to the constitutionally-protected right of peaceful assembly, the right of freedom of association, the right of freedom of religion, right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to due process of law, the right to counsel in a criminal case, the right to a trial by jury in a criminal case, the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and so forth, BECAUSE ALL OF THOSE PARTICULAR RIGHTS REALLY ARE ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED RIGHTS.

Example Two: But, the alleged "right to drive a car" DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE CONSTITUTION and is not recognized by the Supreme Court as a CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED RIGHT. So, that alleged "right to drive a car" IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED RIGHT and never has been .

So, under the law, the alleged "right" to drive a car WAS NEVER A CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED RIGHT in the first place (which might have otherwise been unlawfully "converted" to a privilege and licensed and sold). So, driving a car remains a mere privilege and can be licensed, regulated and taxed.

The same is true with OTHER ALLEGED "RIGHTS", like the alleged "right" to practice law without a license, the alleged "right" to practice medicine without a license, the alleged "right" to fly airplanes without a license, and so on, BECAUSE THOSE ALLEGED "RIGHTS" ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED RIGHTS. So, those activities remain a mere privilege and can be licensed, regulated and taxed.

It is really that simple.

Note that every activity which requires a license is an activity that poses a risk to persons, property, wildlife or natural resources.

DRIVING a car requires a license because of the risk that it poses to persons and property.
PRACTICNG LAW requires a license because of the risk that it poses to persons and property.
PRACTICING MEDICINE requires a license because of the risk that it poses to persons.
FLYING COMMERICAL PASSENGER JETS requires a license because of the risk that it poses to persons and property.
SELLING SECURITIES ON THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE requires a license because of the risk that it poses to persons and property.
HUNTING requires a license because of the risk that it poses to persons, property, wildlife and natural resources.
MARRIAGE requires a license to determine the blood types of the parties. Mixing incompatible blood types can kill children born of the marriage.
DRIVING COMMERICAL TRUCKS weighing 60,000 pounds, at highway speeds, down steep mountain grades, in the rain and snow requires a license because of the risk that it poses to persons and property.

FACT: When a licensed person refuses to follow the rules of the activity for which he was licensed, the sovereign which issued that license can (and will) take that license away.

Note than NONE of the activities which are licensed above are CONTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED "RIGHTS" (like the right to free speech).

My Best,

Snoop

 

OK snoop, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", yet I have to register pistols, have to pay a fee to carry said pistol, have to fill out Federal forms to buy any firearm and pass a background check. If I'm a convicted felon OR anyone that has a charge of domestic violence against them EVEN though I've completed my sentence and paid my debt to society I am forbidden from owning a firearm and on and on depending on the state you live in. Seems that a little work is needed here to straighten out some corrupt/stupid politicians.

 

Well it would appear you missed the significance of the part you did not put in red, “too often.”
If you need an example, in some localities you must secure a permit to do any landscaping around your house, even just planting some bushes. Is it a “right” articulated in the constitution? Hard to conclude it is less a right than gay marriage, and getting some bush can satisfy some folks’ pursuit of happiness. ;-)

Have fun.

 

THE TRUTH ABOUT FAKE LEGAL EXPERTS, LIKE ROD CLASS

For the hoaxes of ROD CLASS, Google "Rod Class And His Many Hoaxes", or click here.
Rod Class & his many hoaxes

For the hoaxes of EDDIE CRAIG, Google "Eddie Craig And The Former Deputy Sheriff Hoax", or click here.
Eddie Craig & the "former deputy sheriff hoax"

For the hoaxes of CARL MILLER, Google "The Carl Miller Hoax", or click here.
Temporary Printing Window

For the hoaxes of ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Google "The Anthony Williams Hoax", or click here.
Temporary Printing Window

For the hoaxes of DEBRA JONES, Google the "Debra Jones Hoax", or click here.
Temporary Printing Window;
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?109244-Debra-Jones-The-Debra-Jones-Hoax.

For the hoaxes of DEBORAH TAVARES, Google "The Hoaxes OF Deborah Tavares", or click here. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/show...aponized-weather-fires-depopulation)&p=226016

 

Hopefully, a staffie will check in and lock this thread. It's a brain waster.