Driver License vs Right to Travel

[Ivysaur]

Please see Title 18 of the United States Code:

18 United State Code section 31 : (6) Motor vehicle.— The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo. (10) Used for commercial purposes.— The term "used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

Ooooh, so that's where the problem was: you read something different that is not the real Title 18 of the United States Code, but something someone else made up.

Title 18 deals with federal crimes. It's interesting that if you go to Title 49 (Transportation), you find this:

(16) Motor vehicle.— The term "motor vehicle" means a vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semitrailer propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used on a highway in transportation, or a combination determined by the Secretary, but does not include a vehicle, locomotive, or car operated only on a rail, or a trolley bus operated by electric power from a fixed overhead wire, and providing local passenger transportation similar to street-railway service.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/13102

Interesting, huh? How do you explain the difference in definitions?

Also, for the hundredth time, YOU DO NOT DECIDE WHETHER A LAW IS CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOW. COURTS OF LAW DO, NOT YOU. YOU CANNOT IGNORE A LAW UNTIL A COURT ADMITS IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

 

[Mario The World Champion]

Went, I know you're trying to make an absolute point with this guy about this whole thing, but it's starting to get redundant and pointless. Here's how I see it.

You have the right to travel anywhere by any means, whether it is by train, riding in a car with another person, riding a bus or flying on a plane. You have the right to buy a car with your own money as long as the paperwork and titles are cleared. In order to operate your car and to prove you are able to, you must pass a test and have a license. Driving is a privilege and if you act like a moron behind the wheel, you will certainly lose that privilege by the state suspending your license. A car is a very complex machine that needs its user to focus on controlling it safely.

In short, you need a license to drive a car whether or not you own a motor vehicle. You want to drive, you need a license. You don't want to drive, don't get it. Obviously since you got a car, you have to have a license to drive it. If you don't want to use your car and do your daily stuff by traveling via other means, go ahead.

 

[PknTrainerKevo]

Ooooh, so that's where the problem was: you read something different that is not the real Title 18 of the United States Code, but something someone else made up.

Title 18 deals with federal crimes. It's interesting that if you go to Title 49 (Transportation), you find this:

(16) Motor vehicle.— The term "motor vehicle" means a vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semitrailer propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used on a highway in transportation, or a combination determined by the Secretary, but does not include a vehicle, locomotive, or car operated only on a rail, or a trolley bus operated by electric power from a fixed overhead wire, and providing local passenger transportation similar to street-railway service.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/13102

Interesting, huh? How do you explain the difference in definitions?

Also, for the hundredth time, YOU DO NOT DECIDE WHETHER A LAW IS CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOW. COURTS OF LAW DO, NOT YOU. YOU CANNOT IGNORE A LAW UNTIL A COURT ADMITS IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Interesting, huh? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/31

Also, your "opinion" is not the law, therefore it is not valid. Also, according to Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, AL 373 US 262 "if the state does erroniously convert your righ into a privilege and require a license and/or fee for it the citizen can ignore the license and fee, and engage in the right with impunity." And according to Norton v Shelby County 118 USR 425 "an unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it has never been passed." So please explain to me how I cannot ignore an unconstitutional law until its been deemed so and please tell me how it hasn't been done yet with automobiles because I've provided many, so yeah, riddle me that, folks. The law is pretty clear.

 

[Kanzler]

Yeah, but it's the courts jobs to deem a law unconstitutional, not you. It's like me telling the teacher "nah, I don't want to learn algebra because I don't think it's a legitimate part of the curriculum". If I really have a problem with it, I can take it up with the school board (the courts, for analogy's sake), but until then I don't really have a right to ignore the curriculum (the law, in this case).

 

[PknTrainerKevo]

You saying that the citizen cannot ignore an unconstitutional law is illogical. Here's an example why. The recent gun registration thats been going on in multiple states is unconstitutional. The Right SHALL NOT be infringed. It's obvious that registration leads to confiscation. So basically what you're saying is that i would have to register my gun, even though its unconstitutional, because a new law was made requiring it. That is absolutely RIDICULOUS. Its like with ObamaCare, obviously unconstitutional, therefore, I can ignore the law with impunity and if they try to come after me for not having it, I have the Right to sue the IRS just as I would a cop for hindering my free Right to travel.

 

[Mana1]

You saying that the citizen cannot ignore an unconstitutional law is illogical. Here's an example why. The recent gun registration thats been going on in multiple states is unconstitutional. The Right SHALL NOT be infringed. It's obvious that registration leads to confiscation. So basically what you're saying is that i would have to register my gun, even though its unconstitutional, because a new law was made requiring it. That is absolutely RIDICULOUS. Its like with ObamaCare, obviously unconstitutional, therefore, I can ignore the law with impunity and if they try to come after me for not having it, I have the Right to sue the IRS just as I would a cop for hindering my free Right to travel.

This is some stereotypical US-American logic right here. Uh oh.

You could twist anything to make it unconstitutional, in your case - and the list above clearly shows that you just have a problem with the government.

Simple logic dictates that this argument is outrageous and based on stupid flaws. If you don't have a licence, you don't have insurance, if you don't have insurance then you must pay for any accidents you cause (by accident or otherwise) out of your own pocket.

Can you not see that if this process was not in effect that careless, poor drivers who cannot afford to pay for others repairs would be infringing on other peoples rights? It doesn't matter if YOU, as in individual have not done it, it is a possibility that your government is minimizing for the good of the entire nation.

 

[Kanzler]

The simple fact, which I made clear in my previous post through analogy, and which you continue to ignore, is that you are in no place to judge whether a law is constitutional or not. Why would we need the Supreme Court when we can just take your interpretation? I think you've just made the entire justice system redundant. If only we could overthrow the government by belief alone, eh?

You can try it out and sue if you like, but that would be your journey alone.

 

[PknTrainerKevo]

But you're ignoring the fact that I've proved by point with Supreme Court cases and in the case of ObamaCare (just like car insurance), a government cannot require you to purchase a service if you do not wish to have/use it. ObamaCare, just like car insurance is a service that one may partake in, but is no way required to have and a random tax cannot be created to fill the spots (so to speak) of those that did not partake in the service.

 

[Kanzler]

I haven't ignored your argumentation for your point. What I am ignoring, or rather, refusing to recognize, is your self-proclaimed legal authority. You can make a good argument, but if that isn't what the Supreme Court recognizes, then it's legally meaningless even if it's logically sound. Perhaps you can make history by suing the DMV for infringing on your right to travel by issuing licenses. However, the courts must hear you first and there is no guarantee you would win such a case.

 

[PknTrainerKevo]

What could be clearer then Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579- "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Kent v Dulles 357 US 116, 125- "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment."

Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago, IL 169 NE 221- "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived."

Miller v US 230 F 486, @ 489- "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."

The first three are pretty clear and the last one shows that a right can't be turned into a crime.

 

[LoudSilence]

What could be clearer then Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579- "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

This might have been said already but I'm going to reiterate it in the clearest possible terms:

Travel ≠ drive. You have a right to do the former using certain means, but depending on your circumstances, you may or may not have the privilege to do the latter.

Kent v Dulles 357 US 116, 125- "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment."

Due process of law. It is the law to be licensed before operating a motor vehicle.

Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago, IL 169 NE 221- "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived."

No one will deny you the use of a highway. But you will be denied the use of a car without the proper prerequisites.

Miller v US 230 F 486, @ 489- "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."

No one is contesting this. They are contesting what you seem to think is a right when in actuality it is not.

The first three are pretty clear and the last one shows that a right can't be turned into a crime.

They are very clear, so it is troubling that you're incapable of seeing them clearly.

 

[T The Manager]

@Kevo.. Dude if you have such a huge issue and think it's unconstitutional then send a detailed letter to the court of law and see how far it get's you. To be real, they'll just laugh at it and throw it away. Actually, let's just take everyone's license away, burn them in a fire and allow ANYONE that owns ANY form of transportation the right to transportation so it's not unconstitutional. Let's just allow drunk drivers to drive drunk and kill innocent people and not enforce driving laws because nobody's got a license, because it's "unconstitutional". Let's allow someone that hasn't had any experience driving a motorized vehicle get out on the road and risk seriously injuring somebody or killing someone, including thyself because it's "unconstitutional". Allow someone that's 90+ years old that can't drive, drive because it's unconstitutional since they own a vehicle. In other words, it's a law for a reason and it's got damn good valid reasons, so just let it go because it's never going to change. You're not getting anywhere by disagreeing with everything everybody says.

EDIT: I don't even know why I'm wasting my time and why you continue to waste everyone else's time over something this stupid.

 

[PknTrainerKevo]

The courts have obviously proved my points numerous times, not only in lower court cases, but Supreme Court cases as well. Even Marbury v Madison proves my point with "an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void." https://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1803/1803_0 Also, note that you are not "driving" a "motor vehicle", you are traveling in an automobile. Please note they are NOT the same thing. Please refer to my previous post on the last page defining "motor vehicle" (this is a Federal definition!). Just because I'm against licensing, doesn't mean I'm for drunk driving. Obviously, we must use common sense to judge whether or not we're fit to "operate" an automobile. If I've been drinking, I'm obviously not going to get behind the wheel of my automobile and travel. Obviously, the elderly who are not in the mind to "drive" their car, should not be doing so. Obviously, if I'm traveling in my automobile safely and NOT infringing upon others' Rights, I am well within the law. The gasoline tax pays for the roads and such, so I have the Right to use them without a license or insurance or plates.

 

[T The Manager]

It's common sense to why we have a license dude! Use common sense when thinking about it, there's many valid reasons to why we are required a license, and their all good reasons its just that you're oblivious to them. So we should just let anybody buy a semi truck and allow them to drive it without having a specialty license? I guarantee you, if you never been in a semi truck that you have no clue how to operate one even if you have a license and been driving for awhile.

Hell, if you wanna drive an automobile without a license go for it, nobody's stopping you. Just don't ***** and moan when you get in trouble with the law.

Other than it being unconstitutional give me one good reason why it shouldn't be mandatory to have a license. And I want a dammmn good reason too.

 

[PknTrainerKevo]

I've proved it with Marbury v Madison, it is repugnant of law because its a direct violation of your Right to travel. Police powers "...adopt such laws and regulations as tend to prevent the comission of fraud and crime, and secure generally the comfort, safety, morals, health and prosperity of the citizens but preserving the public order, preventing the conflict of rights in the common intercourse of the citizens... within constitutional limitations..." Did everybody get that? Within constitutional limitations! Therefore, you can put in things such as lights, lanes, signs and the such, but you cannot require a license and/or insurance to exercise the right to travel in your private automobile that is in no way in commerce or the like. I am simply traveling. Also, your argument about diesel trucks is irrelivant because nobody in their right mind would have one as a daily "driver" and if they did, I'm pretty sure they're going to be smart about it and if they're not then they will be held liable for injury and/or any damage that occured directly from their actions. Let me repeat that: you WILL be held liable for any injury and/or property damage that occured directly for your actions! Plain and simple. Due process is the law. Where's the due process when you require me to have a license to use the roads I pay for through the gas tax? What is this a joke? Some sort of new hobby you picked up? In no way can your Rights be diminished! Its the LAW!

 

[BadPokemon]

Do you need a drivers license to travel behind the wheel of a vehicle? Is "driving" a privilege? The answer to both is no. In the united states of America and other Common Law countries (Britain, Scotland, most of Canada, etc) travelling is a Right. For the purpose of knowledge specific to my country, I will be focusing on the American system. Now, let's get a few things defined first. To "drive" is a commercial act to use the highways for profit to transport people or goods (taxi, newspaper, pizza, etc). This means that you do need a license, resgistration, plates and insurance, BUT if you're using the roads for pleasure or just to get from Point A to Point B (road trips, going to the store or work, etc) then you DO NOT need any of the above mentioned documents. The Right to travel is a constitutionally protected Right and backed by the Supreme Court.

According to Article 6 para 2 of the Constitution for the united states of America reads: This Constitution, and the Laws of the united states which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the united states, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

This is backed by an 1803 Supreme Court case Marbury v Madison in which the Honorable Justice John Marshall said that for any secondary law to come in conflict with the Supreme Law was illogical for the Supreme Law would prevail over all other law. This means anything that goes against the Constitution is null and void in law.

Now that we got that out of the way, it is important to know that even though cars did not exist when the constitution was drafted, they still apply to the Right to travel. Under Common Law and the constitution, you have the Right to property. Your private vehicle is considered property and you have the Right to transport your property (as long as its not for profit) without restrictive licenses and other fees. While I believe one should learn to use such machinery, according to Common Law and the constitution, you shouldn't be charged to excersise your basic Rights.

Lets briefly look into other Supreme Court cases such as Shapiro v Thompson which said that "the Right to travel is a Right so basic it doesn't even need to be mentioned." Murdock v Pennsylvania said "no state may convert a secured Liberty into a privilege and charge a license and/or fee" and Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, AL said "if a state does knowingly convert a secured Liberty into a privilege and charge a license and/or fee, the citizen may ignore the law and operate with impunity" (which means they can't punish you).

The gasoline tax (which is charged per gallon) pays for the highways. Licenses, registration and plate fees are revenue for the state, they provide nothing for the highways and insurance companies generate revenue with the "mandatory insurance" policy scam. Traffic tickets are also revenue for the state, which is also voluntary.

Traffic tickets, just like a drivers license birth certificate, social security card, etc,, is a contract between you and the state (contracts are voluntary, see Contract Law 101). When you sign for that ticket or license, you lose your Constitutional Rights because of the way they wrote the contract. I understand that most don't want to deal with cops harassing, so for that, I recommend ditching your license and reapplying. After your signature, put "under duress UCC 1-308 without prejudice". This will protect your Rights while "accepting" their frivilous privilege. For those interested in more information, I'm happy to inform.

Kevo

Based on your logic, 10 year olds should be driving. How about no! Anyways, it comes down to the states to make laws on driving.

 

[Mario The World Champion]

Kevo, answer me this. When you're traveling in your automobile, where do you sit? Is it in the seat where the pedals are in the foot well and the steering wheel is in front of you? Guess what, you're controlling it and that means you need a license.

Whether or not if you use a vehicle for commercial use or for getting from point A to point B, you need a license. Are you some sort of troll that is doing all this for the lulz?

 

[Kanzler]

Based on your logic, 10 year olds should be driving. How about no! Anyways, it comes down to the states to make laws on driving.

This is a very good point! Without licenses, police would have no right to detain 10 year olds, folk with vision too poor to drive, or dangerous drivers. Why? Because without licenses, on what grounds would the police have to do anything? If they did detain the above demographics, that would be a violation of their right to due process. But obviously we're not going to arm-twist the police, now are we?

 

[T The Manager]

Kevo, answer me this. When you're traveling in your automobile, where do you sit? Is it in the seat where the pedals are in the foot well and the steering wheel is in front of you? Guess what, you're controlling it and that means you need a license.

This ^ Everyone needs to like this ^. That's the best logical explanation I've seen in a long time bro, well done.

Whether or not if you use a vehicle for commercial use or for getting from point A to point B, you need a license. Are you some sort of troll that is doing all this for the lulz?

Again, this ^ this guy know's his ****! Thank you!

 

[darkredwing]

While I hate to jump in here in the middle of all of this out of the blue, but I felt that I had to say technically Kevo is correct. I'll start saying I agree with the licensing system because it's basically a competency test. Mainly because of a case mentioned earlier but didn't have the full statement.

"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22 "

Regulated means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. can be enforced by the government, and is NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.

Now LoudSilence mentioned that it simply states I would not be denied use of the highways. One cannot legally cannot enter a controlled access highway(freeway) without a motor vehicles of a minimum power or weight, which would be a at least a motor cycle or car. By requiring a license to drive I could be denied use of the freeways.

As for the '10 years being allowed to drive' that's a different case, children do not enjoy the same rights as adults and are the responsibility of the parents/guardians because they are not capable of making appropriate decisions and judgment. (This is not meant to be an insult to anyone under 18, I do know many teenagers are more than capable of making decisions for themselves.)

I've already said I do agree with requiring licensing because it ensures people who do drive are capable of doing so at a satisfactory level. But, Kevo's point of view does have some legal footing that has gained traction in recent years.