• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
    Register

Driver License vs Right to Travel

Kanzler

    • 5,983
    Posts
    15
    Years
    Take away licenses and the police won't have any grounds to make age judgments. What will they do then, pass a minimum age for driving law?

    Licenses are a deprivation of your freedoms - but they are fair in my mind, in the courts' mind, in many people's minds. The constitution has provisions for infringing on our rights, only limitation being that they follow the principle of due process, meaning they do it fairly. THE CONSTITUTION PERMITS THE INFRINGEMENT OF OUR RIGHTS WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW. There, capital letters means people will read it.

    [N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
    Click to expand...

    You can't be deprived of your rights without due process of law. Did they say anything against depriving your rights WITH due process of law? Didn't think so.

    Is issuing licenses a "fair" infringement of our freedoms? I'd say so. Keeps those unfit to drive off the roads. Makes it easier for us to decide who should and shouldn't be on the road, saving everybody's time. We shouldn't protect everybody's rights equally all the time. Sometimes we infringe for big things, such as taking away the rights of criminals. Sometimes we infringe on little things, such as issuing licenses. What's important is that the infringement has to be fair and serve some common purpose. I think driver's licenses do both.

    Let's not deny that our rights CAN be deprived by the constitution anymore. The due process clauses are clear and are a very important part of the constitution and should not be ignored. What's more debatable is whether licenses can be considered a restriction under due process or not.
     

    PknTrainerKevo

    • 77
    Posts
    10
    Years
    • Seen Dec 21, 2015
    No trolling intended. I don't have time to spew random bulls*it over the internet that isn't factual. I came to inform about the law based on the information I've found that supports my logic and claim. Thank you darkredwing for understanding what I'm saying. Although I don't agree with the licensing, I can see their thinking, but the fact that its in direct conflict with the Supreme Law makes it null and void no matter how noble the issue is.

    Due Process is used for individual citizens, not the mass. Just because one person is wreckless doesn't mean that everyone else should suffer. Do you take away everyone's gun because one idiot robbed and shot the owner and some pigs, i mean cops? No, that's illogical.
     

    BadPokemon

    Child of Christ
    • 666
    Posts
    10
    Years
    PknTrainerKevo said:
    No trolling intended. I don't have time to spew random bulls*it over the internet that isn't factual. I came to inform about the law based on the information I've found that supports my logic and claim. Thank you darkredwing for understanding what I'm saying. Although I don't agree with the licensing, I can see their thinking, but the fact that its in direct conflict with the Supreme Law makes it null and void no matter how noble the issue is.

    Due Process is used for individual citizens, not the mass. Just because one person is wreckless doesn't mean that everyone else should suffer. Do you take away everyone's gun because one idiot robbed and shot the owner and some pigs, i mean cops? No, that's illogical.
    Click to expand...

    I think you are right and wrong. Driving laws are for the individual states to make. Some states allow driving at 17 while others at 16. If I'm wrong, then you could be correct. For safety, there still needs to be licensing and drivers test and stuff.
     
    Ivysaur

    Ivysaur

    Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
    • 21,082
    Posts
    17
    Years
    Except the Supreme Court has never said that requiring a licence goes against due process of law or violates any rights, therefore licences are valid.

    Not to mention that licences operate in virtually every country in the world without problem. And honestly, what is wrong with being required to obtain a licence? I'd like someone to answer me this question.
     

    Kanzler

    • 5,983
    Posts
    15
    Years
    PknTrainerKevo said:
    Due Process is used for individual citizens, not the mass. Just because one person is wreckless doesn't mean that everyone else should suffer. Do you take away everyone's gun because one idiot robbed and shot the owner and some pigs, i mean cops? No, that's illogical.
    Click to expand...

    I don't think you understand due process. Due process is about the fairness of laws and the application of laws, so consequently it does apply to the masses. How can something be fair if you're not taking everybody into consideration? Taking away guns is a matter of fairness as well. The consensus seems to be so far that confiscation of everybody's weapons would be inappropriate, but that's a whole other thread altogether.

    Again though, and we're just repeating ourselves here, but it's in the Court's place to make decisions about what is constitutional and what isn't, not in an individual. As individuals we have the Right to make whatever Interpretations we like, but that doesn't mean they have any Legal power, no matter how logical they might be.
     

    PknTrainerKevo

    • 77
    Posts
    10
    Years
    • Seen Dec 21, 2015
    Yet another court case: No statutory duty lies to apply for, or to possess a driver license for personal travel and transportation as defendant is not within the class of persons for whose benefit or protection the statute was enacted." Routh v. Quinn, 20 Cal 2d 488
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top