It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Human_Alien
Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by Human_Alien
I understand the proposition.
I also understand that cars take time to learn to operate and it would be a horrible idea to let any one just drive a car without proving they can blend with the rest of traffic and that they are capable of controlling their vehicle.
I've had a few experience where experience and ability to control the card made the difference between a dead (or seriously injured) and a live person.
But it all boils down to money/revenue. Why can't I....a licensed driver, teach someone else to drive?
Clearly I'm qualified cause I paid for that card telling me so!
It has to be from an instructor (who knows no more about driving than I do) where he.... had to take classes to BECOME a certified teacher.....who then, turns around to charge YOU to learn to drive where YOU then, go PAY for a permit until it's time to PAY for a license.
And oh no. The fun doesn't stop there.
The car you're about to receive as a gift?
You now have to pay taxes on it and....you'll have to register it too!
That's right. That free car your daddy gifted you? Comes with a hefty price tag! Oh...then you have to carry insurance on it so if you hit another car, a good lawyer (that you hire of course) can turn a little fender bender into a profitable law suit!
The fun just never stops here in this Free and greedy country o'ours
The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." [emphasis added] Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.
"...For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion." State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Hadfield, supra; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; and other cases too numerous to mention.
"Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain." Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982.
"The right of the 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 the 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 purpose of life and business." Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784; Thompson vs. Smith, supra.
Originally posted by filosophia
You don't need a license to drive. Tell me where you insert your driving license when you enter a vehicle? You don't. You insert a key, meaning a key is necessary to start a car, (unless you have a car that starts without a key) but a license is just a piece of paper that gives one the impression of capability not actual capability to drive.
The term "driver" in contradistinction to "traveler" is defined as: "Driver One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940.
"Travel: To journey or to pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go from one place to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a train, an automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; Make a journey." Century Dictionary, p.2034.
"Traveler: One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business, or health." Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3309.
"Traffic: Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, or the like. The passing of goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money..."; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3307.
Originally posted by joechip
reply to post by zcflint05
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?
Actually, I believe these examples you cite would fall quite comfortably under the legitimate regulatory powers of congress, being commercial "driving" rather than "traveling." Interesting you should use these examples, as they kind of illustrate the types of "driving" that may Constitutionally be regulated and licensed.
Originally posted by krakencampbell
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 SlyingFaucers
reply to post by Human_Alien
I dont see why you would not first deem one fit to drive?
I do see your point, but the fact of the matter is this deterrent does keep a large portion of dangeroous drivers off of the road.edit on 1-2-2011 by SlyingFaucers because: (no reason given)