yes,

ones right to 'drive a car' ends with anothers 'right to pursue life' by not being KILLED due to the drivers incompetence or incapability


its no infringement for others to 'travel',, but it is an infringement for the impaired or incapacitated or unknowledgable (of street directions and driving rules) to be DRIVING VEHICLES,,,

You are clueless!

How does operating a vehicle without a license or registration make a person a bad driver or risk to others?

Perhaps we should all drive tanks!

I didn't say anything about disobeying the rules of the road. Those are offenses you can be stopped and charged for.

We are talking about owning and operating, not breaking the law.

its a risk to others if there is no verification that one knows how to drive,,,,

its an issue of public safety, the 'right' for those of us in the public to continue to pursue life and happiness by feeling safe on the roads,, to require (Test) that people actually know HOW TO DRIVE Before driving,,,

Driving is as common as a TV anymore. Kids are put on the streets with "permits" not knowing how to drive every day.... do we ban them too? You just like being coddled and paid, told what to do, what's right, what's wrong.

Sad life. A slave mentality. Things never change when a culture is adopted/adapted thru propaganda and programming. Those that fight it and want something better are the ones you call crazy. The Sons of Liberty had to overcome a whole slew of people who thought like you before they ever fought the crown for our independence. Those who believe as you will cause it to happen again!

You've been well trained. Not so educated.

I kind of like using my brain, self accomplishments, freedom and the liberty of actually enjoying something, rather than a leader who tells me I didn't build it, a corrupt govt that tells me I can't do it, and then takes away my abilities to do so thru unlawful/unconstitutional regulation and law.

http://inspirationalstorytellers.com/the-elephant-and-the-rope/
The Elephant and the Rope

There is a story about a man who, as he was passing some elephants, suddenly stopped, confused by the fact that these huge creatures were being held by only a small rope tied to their front leg. No chains, no cages. It was obvious that the elephants could, at anytime, break away from their bonds but for some reason, they did not.



He saw a trainer nearby and asked why these animals just stood there and made no attempt to get away. Well, the trainer said, when they are very young and much smaller we use the same size rope to tie them and, at that age, it's enough to hold them. As they grow up, they are conditioned to believe they cannot break away. They believe the rope can still hold them, so they never try to break free.



The man was amazed. These animals could at any time break free from their bonds but because they believed they couldn't, they were stuck right where they were.

people need to learn to drive, it is incumbent that the licensed driver is held responsible while they are in the car, permits are for six months, not for a lifetime, and MOST Drivers on the roads have licenses and not permits,,


now, whether they USE what they learned well is another question, and YES when they break the laws of the road, even after passing a test, they should have legal consequence,, which they do

unfortunately, I am not permitted to respond to personal insults and attacks, so I will skip my response to those,,,,and the ASSumptions about what I like

I Don't assume that I have the right to do whatever makes me happy though, that's for sure,,,,I Take into account how actions affect others and how actions EN MASSE would affect things as well

I Am doing the things I 'want' to do, I just do them legally

no one prevents me from doing the legally either,


a society of no law would be a chaotic one,, as well as one where everyone just did whatever made them 'happy'


if MAN Created it, man controls it,, that's life,,,,

those things man create usually take funds to do so and require revenue and resources,, also life

and I may want to toss a piece of gum on the road, and it not 'harm' anyone, but if everyone is able to do it in their 'pursuit of happiness', it may lead to the unhappiness of many others who aren't happy looking at it


there are a lot of things in life like that where 'happiness' isn't so simple when it affects the 'happiness' of others,, this is one of those cases


its not intelligent, in my opinion, to hand just anyone a gun or to just allow anyone behind a ton of metal that can move at speeds up to 100mph,, it would impede on my 'happiness' to worry about my safety in a society where that was the accepted norm,,,,


as a citizen, Im sure my 'happiness' should be no more or less an issue than anyone elses ,,,

You are definitely clueless. You want your rights but wish to infringe on or limit those of others.

Aren't you glad soldiers will fight and die defending them for you..... so you don't have to.

So how do you show them thanks? By giving them away or allowing them to be abused or taken in your ignorance.

Typical liberal!

You want your rights but wish to infringe on or limit those of others

(kind of like those who wish to have the 'right' to happiness by allowing unskilled drivers access to cars, while infringing upon the 'right' to life of those put in danger by such a 'right')




Aren't you glad soldiers will fight and die defending them for you..... so you don't have to.

(what soldiers fight for is personal to the soldier isn't it? many do it because it is a job, many never planned to do it,,,soldiers aren't all the same in their motivations,, and when is the last time a soldier died defending my 'rights'? what war have we been in in the last 50 years that had to do with those?)


So how do you show them thanks? By giving them away or allowing them to be abused or taken in your ignorance


I Show them respect by thanking them, the same way I Thank teachers when I See them, or doctors when I See them, or firefighters, or police officers,,etc,,


,,plenty of people with important jobs that I Respect,, and when I See them, I Tell them thanks PERSONALLY

relevance?

did someone provide statistics in this thread? Anyone?

opinions,, opinions and more opinions,, everyone is entitled,,,

This is one of my foremost interest but unfortunately I have been tied up and not able to post in a timely manner, so excuse me for my untimeliness. Now for the matter at hand.

While the concept is absolutely correct, the case law quoted is very weak and could result in a conviction if you try to use.

First, Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22 had more to do with regulation of commerce than the right of traveling upon the public domain. Trying to use this would result in the judge disqualifying your case law and a win for the prosecution. It has been quoted many times but mostly by utilities.

Second, Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367, 154 S.E. 579, 154 S.E.2d 579 (1930). The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will.

This is a very powerful statement but is not complete within itself but does establish case law and come be used with a challenge of a violation of basic inalienable rights.

Third, Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 78 S. Ct. 1113, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1204 (1958), "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. So much is conceded by the Solicitor General. In Anglo-Saxon law that right was emerging at least as early as the Magna Carta.[12] Chafee, 126*126 Three Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787 (1956), 171-181, 187 et seq., shows how deeply engrained in our history this freedom of movement is. Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values."

This does help to establish travel as a basic "liberty" as in the preamble of the Constitution. This goes to reinforce the Thompson vs Smith case law and adds to a firm legal basis for your argument.

Fourth, Shachtman v. Dulles, 225 F.2d 938 (D.C. Cir. 1955) is a due process case that again addresses the non-issuance of a passport without due process. However, it does again confirm a fundamental liberty but then quotes the 14th Amendment that removed rights in favor of privileges.

"The Supreme Court has said: "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." Freedom to leave a country or a hemisphere is as much a part of liberty as freedom to leave a State."

I believe this would do more damage than good to a right to travel by automobile case.

Subverted, if you mean removing your right and substituting a mean of revenue, then yes they did, but only if you have a drivers license.

You are correct, there is no "RIGHT" to "DRIVE" a motor vehicle. But their is a right to travel by private conveyance all day long.

But of course, definitions mean everything and the quote is very void of definition.

Are you a cab driver or use the highways for commerce? If not give it back and tell them you don't need it. You can travel anywhere so long as you don't "DRIVE".

Again you would be incorrect. The Supreme court has disagreed with your opinion many times. One of the most substantial cases was the Virginia Supreme Court, Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367, 154 S.E. 579, 154 S.E.2d 579 (1930).

Absolutely incorrect, you may travel upon the public highways and byways any time you desire. No license, no registration, no tags, no insurance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmD7CNhsAd0&list=PLA8E2CCE38D068F87

Don't even have to obey the statutes, just must be responsible for your actions. No injured party, no foul.

to travel is to move from one place to another, which we have a God given 'right' to do all day long

however, we were never bestowed by God a 'right to drive'



it is not constitutional right, to drive a car , only to TRAVEL,,,,

Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

"Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Try trying to abridge my right, it will be the most painful 5 to 10 years of your life as we dance through the court system.

Again, without understanding definitions, your statement are totally incorrect. While your conclusions are correct, they are not as you are trying to apply them.

With traveling, you travel upon the highways using any modern conveyance without a license. If you drive, then you need a license to operate a motor vehicle.

Now you are saying they are the same, no they are not.