Kudos to Rep. Franklin.

This appears to be a small step in a larger (and hopefully growing) movement where local and state politicians recognize at least some aspects of mans' sovereignty over government control.

He has the right idea, it is a start. Hope this passes and catches on. Less government intrusion and more true freedoms, please.

I'm curious where it states in the constitution that we have a "right" to drive.

Hell, I live in the most conservative state in the union and they even call it the "driving privlidge".

I tend to agree with most people that drivers should be licensed and if there were no drivers licenses then how the hell are we supposed to stop people with multiple DUIs from hitting the road? Do you still have the "right" to drive after you get wasted and drive multiple times? Do you still have your "right" to drive if you've murdered someone with a car?

There are plenty of decent reasons to license drivers---maybe not to force insurance on people--but licensing and regulation of drivers is pretty important especially with how deadly humans seem to be with cars. There has to be some type of standardization to make sure we're not putting total morons on the road.

As a Georgian, whose tax dollars pay this mans salary, all I can say to this him is:

Great job grandstanding there Hoss... I wonder how much of the state budget will get sucked up by this stunt? How many hours will the tax payers cover state legislative wages while you showboat? How many needed laws will get put on the back burner while you try to win over a few extra voters for next election?

This is BS in my opinion. His odds of getting anywhere with this are slim to none. And he'll waste money and time in pursuit of nothing more than winning over the hearts and minds of a few Tea Partiers. He should have blogged this and not used it as political opportunism.

~Heff

This guy's logic baffles me. Driving isn't a right,it's a privilege that one must earn. In doing so,you must show you're qualified to drive,hence the driving test. The driving license just shows you are,in fact,a qualified driver who understands the rules of the road and you (hopefully) won't present a danger to yourself or other drivers.

The license is also a convenient form of ID. It's certainly better than having to carry a passport around with you everywhere. Not everyone can get a passport,by the way. Maybe this guy is part of some agenda to push a national ID card that would eliminate individual State IDs.

Originally posted by zcflint05
I'm curious where it states in the constitution that we have a "right" to drive.

Hell, I live in the most conservative state in the union and they even call it the "driving privlidge".

Of course the state says that because they want you to believe it. You're looking at it backwards. The idea here is that anything not specifically given to the government as a power should not be taken by the government. In other words, driving is not something we gave to the government to govern, therefore they have no right to call it a privilege. They were not in the loop to begin with. Now, you could say, well, there was no driving back then. Well, you could drive a wagon or ride a horse. were you required to have a license for either? No, then it's the same for driving.

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by zcflint05
I'm curious where it states in the constitution that we have a "right" to drive.

Hell, I live in the most conservative state in the union and they even call it the "driving privlidge".

Of course the state says that because they want you to believe it. You're looking at it backwards. The idea here is that anything not specifically given to the government as a power should not be taken by the government. In other words, driving is not something we gave to the government to govern, therefore they have no right to call it a privilege. They were not in the loop to begin with. Now, you could say, well, there was no driving back then. Well, you could drive a wagon or ride a horse. were you required to have a license for either? No, then it's the same for driving.

I would also add here that the freedom for a man / woman to "travel on the land" is one of the rights inherent in natural law doctrine.

It may only be a symbolic gesture that falls flat at this point, but "better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness."

Technically, driving could fall under pursuit of happiness.

Do we have the right to travel as free citizens?

This just shows how absurd it is for some Americans to think that everything in a 300-year-old document can be applied in the 21st century.

I'm not sure what the exact part of the US Constitution is where people will claim that a driving licence is unconstitutional, but I'm pretty sure the quoted section will be suitably ambiguous and vague, and certainly won't mention anything about automobiles.

Move with the times, people !


Presumably having a pilot's licence is unconstitutional as well. Yeah, that's going to be safe.

In fact, surely everybody has the constitutional ''right'' to own and drive a tank or APC down the road, if they want to.

Drivers license have NOTHING to do with drunk drivers. You think a piece of plastic is going to keep them off the road...lol...Any time you see the word "License" you are giving up some type of right for a state issued or gov. issued policy that they use for revenue....

I think this is a terrific idea. And for those of you that are complaining about "well, what about drunk drivers and others that can cause harm by being behind the wheel", guess what, they're driving now, right on our streets every day. I say this, let this law pass, and the if you get pulled over for dui, the state gets your vehicle. If you're dui and cause an accident, the state gets your vehicle. If you are dui and cause an accident with a death involved, you get the death penilty (an eye for an eye). You people act like just because someone is driving they actually have a license. Their are quite a few that do not.

Originally posted by MMPI2

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by zcflint05
I'm curious where it states in the constitution that we have a "right" to drive.

Hell, I live in the most conservative state in the union and they even call it the "driving privlidge".

Of course the state says that because they want you to believe it. You're looking at it backwards. The idea here is that anything not specifically given to the government as a power should not be taken by the government. In other words, driving is not something we gave to the government to govern, therefore they have no right to call it a privilege. They were not in the loop to begin with. Now, you could say, well, there was no driving back then. Well, you could drive a wagon or ride a horse. were you required to have a license for either? No, then it's the same for driving.

I would also add here that the freedom for a man / woman to "travel on the land" is one of the rights inherent in natural law doctrine.

It may only be a symbolic gesture that falls flat at this point, but "better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness."

So just to comprehend your thoughts about "traveling on the land" are you saying that airline pilots shouldn't have to be trained or licensed as well? How about Air Force pilots? Or professional drivers such as taxicab; livery car? Should someone with 5 DUI's be able to pick you up in a cab; or fly a plane?

Jesus Christ; Freedom is great and everything but there's a difference between "freedom" and "idiocy".

Originally posted by FlyingJadeDragon
This guy's logic baffles me. Driving isn't a right,it's a privilege that one must earn. In doing so,you must show you're qualified to drive,hence the driving test. The driving license just shows you are,in fact,a qualified driver who understands the rules of the road and you (hopefully) won't present a danger to yourself or other drivers.

The license is also a convenient form of ID. It's certainly better than having to carry a passport around with you everywhere. Not everyone can get a passport,by the way. Maybe this guy is part of some agenda to push a national ID card that would eliminate individual State IDs.

That's what would concern me too. The license proves you've passed a test saying you know how to drive, and know what the rules of the road are. I've seen men from India trying to teach their wives how to drive on the Wrong side of the road.
I've also taught friends how to drive, and a couple of them, I told them not to ever get in the driver's seat again.

Should everybody have the ''right'' to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, if they wanted to ?

Is there anything in the US Constitution that disables this ''right'' ? I don't think so.

Presumably everybody would decry the government as ''unconstitutionally'' if they thwarted the development of these weapons in a secret laboratory ?


This is how ridiculous so many of these über-constitutionalist's arguments are. As the above scenario should be equally as justified as many of these other bizarre ''rights'' that people claim to have had granted to them.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Move with the times, people !

Presumably having a pilot's licence is unconstitutional as well. Yeah, that's going to be safe.

In fact, surely everybody has the constitutional ''right'' to own and drive a tank or APC down the road, if they want to.

And other similar. If "moving with the times" means "more intrusive government" then No.

No, that's not 'presumably.' No one is saying you have the right to fly a 747--unless you are alone and can afford it. If you work as a driver for hire, your company needs to teach you to use the conveyance. They should certify you as competent to do so. With rights come responsibilities and liabilities. If the local municipality builds a road and says, "Look, folks. We used asphalt and that means nothing over 85,000 pounds can drive on thie thing and tank treads will rip it up, so if you do that you're liable for fixing it." On the other hand, if I have an APC and it fits on the roads, why can't I drive it? The second amendment does not say, "Except for artillery."

You can take anything to extremes, make up a silly example, and make fun of it. Rather than "get with the times" how about "getting with the program" and giving a good faith effort to understand what the issues are here.