Driver License vs Right to Travel

[PknTrainerKevo]

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

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

In the US you basically have to pass a driver's test. It's a little crazy how early kids can get their training licenses these days (3 months before 15 years) and I think they should tighten it up since underage kiddies are very irresponsible drivers, as I have learned. I think that "right to drive" should be a bit stricter but based solely on the individuals ability.

I think gasoline taxes are fair because they go towards making driving easier and safer (most times).

However I think that personally we should be investing more in public transportation. Those who cannot drive, such as the disabled or the people who cannot afford gas/insurance/whatever, do not have the same freedom as other individuals. Public transportation is pitiful in the States and honestly I would much rather use that as opposed to having to invest in a vehicle which is quite expensive.

 

[PknTrainerKevo]

Public transportation is invalid in this thread. I'm speaking of individual Liberties. One has the Right to purchase a vehicle as they would a bicycle or skateboard for the use of personal travel and one should not be subjected to licenses of fees to excersise such a Right. As I stated in my first post, one should learn the machinery properly before use to prevent damage or injury. Does someone just hop on a bike and try to ride it without knowing how? No. Its the same concept with a car.

 

[donavannj]

Requiring a license to operate a motor vehicle isn't inherently violating one's right to travel since there are quite a large number of alternate means of travel. Now, before you attack me for stating this, I would like to point out that I can see how you arrived at the conclusion that it does violate a "right to travel". I will elaborate on why I think the way I do in the next paragraph.

Okay, first to explain my personal philosophy on liberties: "Your right to throw punches wherever you want ends at my face." is the best way I've seen and heard to describe my philosophy, and I think it's a pretty good rule to live by. Basically, your right to do things ends when it starts to harm others and/or infringe on their rights (such as the basic human right to life, aka security of person). Now, the motorized vehicle is a very dangerous form of travel, to the point where an unskilled driver can easily infringe on the rights of others, including trampling all over the "right to travel" (not to mention the right to security of person by endangering others) of other individuals traveling by any means by simply operating the vehicle. In this hypothetical, a motor vehicle makes it far easier to violate the "right to travel" of others on the road in the very same ways it makes traveling easier, as it's a heavy piece of machinery that has oodles of distractions inside and ample room to be distracted in, and failure of successful operation of a motor vehicle often leads to an impediment to others' rights to travel, as well as endangerment of security of person rights of those individuals. For endangering the rights of others, I am of a mind that such a dangerous task needs to be gated with licensing (note that I have not said that age-restricting the licensing is something I am in favor of, since I've seen competent 13 year old unlicensed drivers and horrible licensed adult drivers) that certifies that you understand the best practices to avoid infringing on the rights of others (specifically and most importantly, the security of person right, because what good is a "right to travel" if there's no person alive to guarantee that right to?) and that also certifies that you understand the risks associated with operating a motor vehicle.

Did you want a tl;dr version of this?

 

[PknTrainerKevo]

I see what point you're making, but again as I stated before "one should learn how to use such machinery" before use. The fact that it COULD be a hazard, doesn't mean it WILL happen. Even if it did happen, accidents still occur among licensed "drivers". The same can be said about guns. Just because something COULD happen, DOESN'T mean it actually WILL happen. It's not a good enough excuse to infringe on one's Rights.

 

[donavannj]

Thing is, that rights infringement, intentional or not, did happen prior to licensing beginning to occur on a state-by-state basis within the United States. A motor vehicle that is 10 times the weight of a typical adult male is far harder for a human being to control in a non-rights infringing fashion than a gun is. And that accident rate among licensed drivers is the very reason I cannot bring myself to be in favor of legally abolishing the concept of a licensed driver, because if there's as many bad drivers as there are that are somehow getting certified, the number of fatalities would be considerably higher with the quality of drivers on the road being unregulated and likely being worse. Deregulating would remove one of the more effective means of preventing the irresponsible use of a motor vehicle while intoxicated or otherwise under the influence of some mind-altering substance. Which is too high of a risk of security of person infringement risk in my opinion.

Granted, I am actually personally in favor of everyone needing to be certified to use a gun, be they government employees or civilians (including all branches the military and all police forces - but those ideas are for another thread), for the same reasons I cannot get behind the idea of abolishing the concept of a licensed driver.

Now, in my ideal world, licensing of either would be wholly unnecessary, but that would require people to stop being, well, people, which is so very much an impossibility.

 

[PknTrainerKevo]

Licensing and certifications for the excersing of Rights goes against the constitution nonetheless. Like i said one needs to learn how to properly use such machinery. Its about common sense, not what if.

 

[Livewire]

You may indeed have a right to travel. The Constitution, however, doesn't specifically say which mode of transportation you may or may not use. Keep in mind this is 1789. And you must remember that you need to look at the constitution in it's proper context, not through a contemporary lens designed to suit your ideology.

People need to be judged fit to use the roads, drive vehicles, etc., by being given a license to use them. We have enough issues with licensed people and safety as is. More people on the roads, unfit to drive, is not a logical solution and is laughable. Public safety wins out here. And that's not going to change, never will, etc.

 

[PknTrainerKevo]

Yes, you're correct about the constitution being written before the car existed, but that doesn't excuse for frivilous license laws. you have the Right to travel by the conveyence of the day. You are guarenteed Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, therefore you are at LIBERTY to travel in your private automobile which is considered private property. Please see Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago, IL, a Supreme Court case (I don't remember the volume and page).

Also, to further explain about the possibility of damage being done with an automobile. If you damage someone's property or endanger someone's life then OF COURSE you're going to be held liable, but otherwise you're within lawful limits.

 

[MKGirlism]

To me:
Drivers License = A card which prevents problems when being caught by the Police.
Rights to Travel = You're free to go anywhere you want, as long as you're no prisoner, nor a suspicion.

 

[PknTrainerKevo]

No, I believe you missed my point 007_Eleven. The use of common sense to learn how to "operate" a piece of machinery by having someone teaching them first (or you could self teach yourself SAFELY) how it works. Don't get me wrong, I do believe in safety, but in no way should it hinder one's Rights with licensing and certification. Its not about safety to the govenrment, its about control. Again, common sense. For guns, it says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED and even though automobiles weren't around back then, they are still considered property under Common Law, which is Supreme Law of the Land. The government has a right to consider public safety, yes, but that doesn't mean license and insurance. It means traffic lights, stop signs, railroad crossings, etc. They must remain within constitutional limitations in order not to breach the contract aka the Constitution. You cannot make a licensing law based on the fact that it COULD be dangerous. In that case, why not have a license to have a knife, or to just live period because you take risks everyday whether you know it or not. Am I violating your Rights if I don't have have a license, insurance, registration or plates, yet I never once hit you nor have a near miss? If yes, please explain. How is it any different if I were to have the above mentioned documents? Wouldn't it be a violation of your rights because I damaged your property? Just because I would drive, excuse me, travel, without those doesn't mean I suddenly lose my skill behind the wheel or to suddenly have the urge to "drive" like a crazed maniac. You have the Right to transport your poperty and your vehicle is considered property.

MKGirlism, Ikm not saying you don't have to travel without said documents. If you wish to have them to "keep out of trouble" even though the Supreme court has ruled it a Right, then sign your documents "under duress UCC 1-308 without prejudice" after your own signature to protect your Rights.

 

[Mana1]

Your argument is pretty confusing. You talk about how you should be taught, but all a license does is prove that you were taught to a satisfactory level and are able to operate machinery safely.

It's the same, essentially, as attending a fire-safety course at work. The license itself has no 'control' and no, it's not some government conspiracy to stop individuals driving. It's not illegal to /travel/ without your documents but it is illegal to /drive/.

I don't understand how you cannot separate those two verbs, they are clearly different. The right to travel is not the right to drive. A car is an expense most people cannot afford, therefore they travel by bus, bicycle or whatever - if driving was a right then, by your arguments, every US citizen is entitled to a car.

I'm equally confused by this "right to transport your property". Is it actually a thing? Because... it makes no sense.

 

[T The Manager]

Dude I'm confused with your discussion as well. The way I see it, is a drivers license is an safety issue. So you want just any person no matter the background to drive a vehicle because they have the privilege? Yes, they got the privilege but you must first prove that you can operate a vehicle and operate it decent or good. If anyone could just get in a car and drive it would be the death of millions of people. Why? Well, the streets have laws you have to abide by, pedestrians have the right away on a crosswalk, you can't just run through a blatant red light, you can't just blow through a stop sign, you can't just take a right on red without yielding or stopping to check if it's safe of oncoming traffic, you can't speed to the extreme's, etc. If you ignore those laws then you could seriously injure yourself, someone else, or even kill yourself and someone else, it's all for safety.

 

[PknTrainerKevo]

Let me clarify for you. You have the Right to obtain property, therefore when you buy a car, it is yours, therefore it is your property. You have the Right to transport your property freely meaning your vehicle and its contents within. A license is qa contract between you and the state and you have the Right to decline that contract, especially when it violates one's Rights. Please see Contract Law 101. Just because someone has a "license", it doesn't mean that a person knows what they're doing in which the license involves. How do you know he didn't cheat or pay his way through? That would make for a fraudulant document. I shouldn't be required to renew it and pay a fee in order to keep it. Also, the gasoline tax pays for the roads, therefore I am entitled to use the roads I pay taxes on. Just because one person is dumb enough to go wreck havoc upon the community with their vehicle, doesn't mean everyone else should suffer, THAT'S AGAINST DUE PROCESS.

Also, your confused about the legal definition of drive which is described as an act of commerce upon the highway (taxi, delivery, etc). So basically if you charge a fee to transport people or goods, you are driving. That includes grandma giving you $20 to take her to the store. However, if you're on the highways for fun or to simply get from point a to point b, then you are travelling. The legal definition of operator is one that owns the vehicle used for commerce. So if John and Joe have a business, John owns the car, but Joe drives it, then John is the operator. Black's Law Dictionary has the legal definitions of words before they became mixed up in today's English.

 

[Mana1]

Also, your confused about the legal definition of drive which is described as an act of commerce upon the highway (taxi, delivery, etc). So basically if you charge a fee to transport people or goods, you are driving. That includes grandma giving you $20 to take her to the store. However, if you're on the highways for fun or to simply get from point a to point b, then you are travelling. The legal definition of operator is one that owns the vehicle used for commerce. So if John and Joe have a business, John owns the car, but Joe drives it, then John is the operator. Black's Law Dictionary has the legal definitions of words before they became mixed up in today's English.

I'll contest that definition.

According to thelawdictionary.org, which is somewhat based on 'Black's Law Dictionary' there is no legal definition of the word 'drive' any more. Even if there was, it is now no longer relevant. The only definition they hold is 'driver' meaning a professional, which is the standard use of the term 'driver' (he is a driver).

Legal Dictionary also lacks any definition. However, it clearly defines the term 'driving under the influence', unless you'd like to argue that that means only those paid to drive, as well?

I think you are confusing out of date laws and out of date terms with relevant information.

You have the Right to obtain property, therefore when you buy a car, it is yours, therefore it is your property. You have the Right to transport your property freely meaning your vehicle and its contents within.

If you buy a car, you can move it with a pickup truck. You don't have the inherent right to drive it, however.

 

[T The Manager]

@Kevo

You telling me you want "anarchy" and you can do anything you want with anything you pay for because it's yours? Even if your putting other people at risk?

I don't get it dude, why are you so worried about the drivers license law? Everyone else in here doesn't mind it (tho I do think paying $20-$30 is bs) because it's not an issue.

And it's the same thing with cigarettes. Say you're 17 years old and you give someone money to buy you tobacco because your under age. It was your money so technically the tobacco is yours and your property even tho it's illegal.

EDIT: Oh and let me add something. If you get a DUI, you'll get a fine and suspension of license, and eventually jail time as you get more offenses. If you don't have a license in the first place how can they suspend your driving and keep control of it? It's easier to keep track of them and they should be as strict as possible on something like this.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Wait wait wait. I'm gonna roll a little back on this one.

Can I just ask what the point of this thread is honestly? I mean, I threw out a little gibble garble to try to get things in a sensible direction but really, Kevo, are you honestly trying to argue that having a license bars right to transportation? Because that's honestly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Freedom of transportation means that you're allowed to go wherever you want. By extension you are essentially saying that everyone who is too poor to afford gas and a car should be compensated for (likely via public transportation since just giving everyone a car is expensive and financially ineffective). Which is fair, but it isn't on subject, because you said yourself that this has nothing to do with public transportation so I'm just stuck with a big... what? Even then denying public transportation does not forbid you to drive because you can walk/ride your fat ass everywhere. Heck, you can even get other people to drive you. That's what my blind friends do in the not-so-public-transportation-friendly state that Michigan is. Should we give the blind the right to drive because of their right to transportation? Heck no, and I think my friends agree with me on that one.

A more obvious and more logical violation of the right to transportation was the detainment of Japanese-Americans in WWII, NOT requiring a driver's license. I dunno what happened to you kiddo, but it honestly sounds like you made this thread as a roundabout way to whine that you got your license temporarily revoked for driving under the influence or breaking probation or something. For the former, good that you got banned. For the latter, eh, it's debatable based on what you did. But saying some ludicrous bull like that isn't going to get people on your side.

I also believe that if you shoot up a hooker with a semiautomatic that you should not be permitted to purchase firearms despite your 2nd amendment rights. I think that's fair enough.

 

[PknTrainerKevo]

Again, you're missing my point. Again, safety first, but not to the point to violate one's rights. If I hit someone with a car, of course I'm going to be liable. If i kill someone, of course I'm going to be liable and I do agree that if you do something as extreme as the latter, of course I should never be able to own a gun, but there's other ways to regulate that. And even so, there's still a thing called Due Process that is guarenteed Right. Look, I'm not arguing this over the basis of dui or probation, because I'm not on either list. I am a responsible adult. The reason I'm arguing this is because the Right stands. And of course blind people shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel because that's an obviously dangerous situation. Again, common sense. And I'm not saying that people should be handed a car and gas if they can't afford it That's why there's public transportation and other means which is why public transportation doesn't apply to the argument. I believe you must earn the things you get. Having it handed to you just creates spoiled brats. Why do you think poverty is the way it is? Because its a government handout and they think they will have everything just given to them. Its not right.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

What exactly is your point? You haven't made it clear in the posts you've posted here, that's for sure.

You don't have a license "handed out to you". You have to take a set number of hours of school and hours of driving to get a permit, which only allows you to drive with a licensed person over the age of 21. Afterwards when you hit certain milestones you get less and less restrictions on your license as you go about proving a solid record. If you have accidents or violations this period is extended. Upon reaching a certain age, you must go through a 30 day period of monitored driving where then you can finally test for your driver's license. If you pass you can use the certificate to pay the $15 or whatever it is for the license.

Laws vary from state to state but they usually resemble what I illustrated.

I don't understand what's "government handout" about that. Heck, almost all parts of the process, bar actually obtaining the license, is privatized!

Again, none of this is required if you want transportation. Blind people, again, can't get transportation via driving themselves and must find other means. This does not mean that they are having their right to transportation violated. It's simply common sense. The blind can utilize their right to transportation by walking, being driven by another person, or using public/privatized transportation. In no means are they not eligible for transportation. A better and more obvious violation again would be the confinement of the Japanese Americans in WWII because their right to transportation WAS illegally revoked for racist reasons. A blind guy is permited to go where he pleases as long as he ain't a driving Stevie Wonder, but the Japanese of that period were actually restricted to one place. Unconstitutionally. Why aren't you *****ing about that very obvious violation of basic American rights right there? Are you too white to care?

Also, poverty has very little to do with getting a license. Why bring it up? To smash on the government again without using punctuation and/or reputable references? In fact, transportation for the impoverished could be improved by improving the same system that helps the disabled - public transportation - which I guess is a government handout in of itself, but what do you want? To live in the woods with a stick?

 

[PknTrainerKevo]

I know how the licensing "regulations" work. I've gone through it in 2 different states, but that was before I knew any of this infomation. My license is currently valid and I am looking to have it denounced as well as my birth certificate and social security number, so I've got some of my own documents to put together that proves my Rights as I've provided here. Here's another SC case for you: Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago, IL. I'm sorry about my punctuation not being perfect as I am not perfect myself.

As for the poverty example, it was just a basic example. I wasn't speaking of transportation in poverty, more like welfare ans Section 8, etc. I have nothing against the lower class, especially those that actually try. As for blind people, of course they have a Right to travel just like anyone else, but is it logical to put him behind the wheel of a vehicle where he can hurt, damage or kill somebody? Absolutely NOT. Public transportation is funded by the tax payers and those that pay the fare to use the bus or train. The roads are funded by the gasoline tax and I have the Right to use what I pay for. The license, registration and plates fees that you pay are revenue for the state, not to the highways. I respect other Peoples' Rights and would expect the same from other. I've made myself pretty clear with the Constitution and the SC rulings. Secondary law NEVER triumphs the Supreme Law (please see Marbury v Madison 1803).

Also, I would agree that the Japanese were mistreated during WWII and it was morally wrong. I can also say the same for slavery. Just because I believe in the Constitution, doesn't mean I'm for slavery and racist, because I'm far from it. I believe everyone should have their Rights equally no matter the skin color or religion.

But answer me this: if i go out and travel in my vehicle in a safe manner, not cause damage or injury, and respecting others travelling the roads, am I violating your Rights? I think not. A lisence is a contract. Why do I need to contract with the government to travel during my daily routine and not making money to transport People or goods? What crime was commited, because according to Common Law, no victim, no crime.