It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ga. Lawmaker Proposes Doing Away With Driver's Licenses

page: 7
35
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


While this sounds good, something else is going to take its place. What might that be? How about requiring every vehicle to be equipped with a transmitter/receiver, a 'black box', a 'transducer' that tracks the miles you drive and charges you a 'fee', which is just a tax, for every mile that you drive, that is automatically deducted from your electronic account? They always have a way of maintaining control don't they.




posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


No offense, but I also saw Egyptian citizens rallying to debockle their leaders, the army peacefully joining them while at the same time following orders from the same government they were against, and people stealing cop uniforms without the cops fighting back. They just kind of got angry and said "OH YOU!"

So I think those rates, if true, have nothing to do with laws. It has to do with the people themselves, whom from what I've seen, mostly stick it out together, even when they find themselves on opposing sides. Some of the army are jerks, and some of the protesters are too. But here's the coolest part. The protesters and army both identify those jerks as bad. And have bound together to fight them.





posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


But you cannot go around and hurt more than yourself, a person next to you, or a friend. Please do not asociate the two together. It's pure ignorance. Yes you can light a whole fores on fire, but that takes a lot more time and effort than getting in a car and killing people.

The fact that you don't feel safe doesn't make the driver's license bad. It makes the ability to get one bad. The reason the law exists is to deter people. Anybody can do anything they want. Why don't we just go and get rid of every law?

To quote an old saying: "People tend to sit where there are places to sit".

Laws exist not to stop the criminals, but to remind the civilized what a criminal is.
edit on 1-2-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Primordial
While it pains me to say it because I'm all for personal freedom and rights without government intervention, my opinion (and I'll explain) is that *driving* is not a right.


First, although I disagree with your assertion that driving is not a right you presented your point excellently. Now onto the discussion and debate.



I agree that license renewals and vehicle registration are just revenue streams.


Agreed with you here!



And why does someone ALWAYS compare this to the second amendment? Well, if you can drive without a license because of the 'right to travel', does that mean you can own a nuclear weapon because of the 'right to bear arms'?


I think the same thing. I never understood the connection, but people think it to be logical and sometimes can connect the two.



First, 'driving' is not specifically mentioned in the constitution .. only traveling.


This is where I take an exception to your argument. Because you have asserted that it is not specifically mentioned within the Constitution, that is must not be an individual right. Again, as I have brought up before in this post I point you towards the Ninth Amendment. It reads as following:

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

Basically, James Madison included this amendment to point out that while there are specific rights listed and named within the Bill of Rights, it by no means that rights held individually are to be disparaged because of the lack of mention. Besides the political and monetary fallout of prohibition, it directly conflicted with the Ninth Amendment and the individually held right to purchase, distribute and drink alcohol.

To further this, we see via the Federalist Essays there was caution involved in including a Bill of Rights. In Federalist No 84, Alexander Hamilton rights the following; "[T]he most considerable of these remaining objections is, that the plan of the convention contains no bill of rights...." He continues on to explain that the Constitution itself already had provisions that protected the individual rights of free peoples. He argues that "Article I. section 3. clause 7..."but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law." This is in response and can be clearly seen as we, as citizens have a right to a trial based on law. In other words, the 5th Amendment.

Later on he displays again to support this by listing the numerous Articles that are again, asserted within the 5th Amendment. Such as Article III. section 2. clause 3. "The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the congress may by law have directed."

The most telling moment he brings up is "It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince." Which is to say, unless the rights are specifically stated, we have not obtained permission to exercise them. This of course is what Hamilton feared would happen with the inclusion of a bill of rights and rightly so as it is happening presently.

That was the danger that Hamilton perceived. That the Bill of Rights would be utilized to construe an argument that since there is no specific mention of a certain right, that right must not exist. He best states it here:

"Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America."

Eloquently reaffirming that the People do not surrender any rights to the Government. Further more he begins to explain how the Constitution was not established nor constructed to grant any rights, but rather limit the political power and interests of Government. How far we are removed from the principle below!

"But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns."

Thus being, citing that there is no mention of 'driving' as a right, there need not be. Saying such twists the intent of the Constitution as a limiting document towards governance to a limiting document upon the private matters of citizens.
edit on 1-2-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


But even the founding fathers desired gun ownage for militia. We is a people, and I am happy they did, decided that the individual too should own a gun. Although the logic of forcing only milita to have them besides the army is clear: one day you all meet at a milita, say the same grievances against the government, and in numbers, do something about it.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 

Samuel Adams wanted a provision in the Constitution to read the following "Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms,"

Originally James Madison, who was delegated the task of constructing the Second Amendment proposed the amendment as "That right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

If you notice, the original and obvious intent was to specifically protect the people and their ability to keep and bear arms. Later it was changed and passed in the House, then the Senate the next day as "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In the Federalist Essays, No 46, James Madison makes the case on why the right is to the individual and not to the state, as many opponents like to claim.

He says "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Clearly the intent and spirit of the Second Amendment, coming straight from the author of it, does not and was never to intended to be limited to the Militia or the State, but rather the People.

Of course, while this does seem like a sidetrack to the license issue, it isn't. What we are fundamentally talking about here is how the Bill of Rights has been taken and taught to be a limiting document upon the peoples' rights as free citizens. With claims being brought up such as "the Constitution doesn't specifically say "driving", shows a lack of understanding that the Constitution has nothing to do with the People but everything to do with the limiting of political power, control and interest of the Government upon the private lives of the citizens.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
and here i was, going to come off as being sarcastic and say, "
oh look, he suddenly realizes that the right to mobility or travel is a human right..."

though i doubt this will gain any traction, kudos for this guy for ...WHOA...trying to adhere to the constitution!
edit on 1-2-2011 by ahmonrarh because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Well yes of course. And we both know, I suspect, that they changed it out of fear, but that in fact every individual has a right to bear arms. A lovely agreement that has kept this nation free longer than most. And will continue to as long as it exists.

But like I said. Laws exist not to regulate the criminal, but to remind the civilized what is a criminal. People will do what they want. My view is that government should stay out of anything that doesn't involve the availability of food, water, and stability. The car is a whole other issue however. If one were to get drunk and get a gun, unless you are purposely in a public place you're not likely to hurt so many people. The thing is, we as humans know guns are for war and killing. To make up excuses "this gun can kill more faster so ban it" is silly, seeing as the gun itself, as a machine, was invented for that very reason. However, the car exists as a forms of transportation allowed by the state for speed and mobility. The state is allowing it, because it serves a good purpose. A gun has no good purpose. it's only existence is to destroy. A car can be used to create and destroy. Thus laws must exist to ensure that the civilized man knows that destruction is intolerable and that it is wrong. Not to mention we have to have a law to charge someone, so getting rid of it makes it impossible to charge them.

Using simple statistics, cars don't kill people, people using cars do. And those people whom are liable to be retarded and kill a lot of people have to be restricted for the greater good. Statistics show that drunk driving, dui, texting while driving, etc etc, all kill way too many people a year, while the amount of people killed by guns being misused is not as bad. The reason is simple. We know a gun kills. We know a car drives. We don't commonly know, especially the people who do it, that cars also kill as well. It is that very reason the laws exist. Because people are retarded and have to be reminded from time to time why it is illegal with the blood of their friends and their arse in jail.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
It truly baffles me how many people on this site

LOVE LOVE LOVE

the government restricting their lives.

"It could not be stated more conclusively that citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restrictions (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts..."

www.welcome.freeenterprisesociety.com... (



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by comody88
reply to post by Human_Alien
 
Although I tend to agree with just about any law that gives us more freedom and less gov't restrictions I really don't see how driver licenses are unconstitutional

most definitions of the word DRIVER, point to a person who does so as their OCCUPATION, to earn a living...cab driver, bus driver, semi driver, race car driver, etc. they receive pay to do so, but as regular people, we travel. to and from work, to the bar, back home, out of town. falling under, from my understanding, common law. which is a human right that does not need permission from anyone to do so.
driver license vs right to travel



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


My only contention with your points is that you have abdicated and stated that the State allows us to operate an automobile. Which, goes against my principles as you may have guessed. Which again, brings us back to the licensing issue. A license to drive and the laws that dictate it smack head on with the individual's right to choose their mode of transportation freely without government restriction.

Laws that govern the operation of that automobile are sound and just. Licensing just serves as a means of revenue and prevent nothing other than offering a peace of mind that someone has obtained the most basic skills of operating such a machine.

If this be the case, why don't we move towards a law that rids the use of state IDs and licenses and keep intact the rules and regulations of public roads and throughway's?

If this lawmaker from Georgia sees no authority for the Government to force someone to obtain permission to operate an automobile, it is that State's prerogative, as long as it doesn't contradict their state constitution. By doing so it doesn't remove DUI laws, age limits of driving or speed limits. It just says we have no authority to charge someone money to be able to travel in the mode of private transportation they see fit.

Even if it were to pass, although I highly doubt it would, I personally would have no objection in the State's ability to regulate such drivers of commercial truck drivers, bus drivers, cab drivers and such. Although I would like to see that move to private oversight. Similar to the AMA for doctors, states could have a private association that puts its reputation on the line by vouching for such drivers I mentioned above.

But alas, it won't happen nor will this pass because it takes money and thus power away from politicians. That would contradict their existence.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


I think the freedom to chose a method of mobility comes from trains, buses, airplanes, etc etc. Which, again, I believe should be freely available to the people within our own borders. Getting a license is a statement from the state that they consider you as a decent enough person whom can handle the basics of controlling a machine. Rights and freedoms have to do with what we as a human race are all entitled to because we are a human being. Operating a machine is not so freely so for all humans. Not everyone knows how to do it. An engineer needs a license because the state acknowledged he can do the job. I, as an architect in training, have to get a license because the state will understand I can do my job, and not some random person on the street. Your license is a statement of ability. You can do that job as a trusted driver.

That is why licenses exist. In ergo, such things as national ID, passports, and all that jazz have no place in a free society, as we are free to come and go because we as a species have legs and can go. A national ID, by its very nature, is an acknowledgement from the state as a right to exist. That goes against the basic rights of man.

Of course there are some regulations to even that. You can't pull down your pants and take a crap in a freeway. The reason being is that we as human beings in a civilized society must uphold to certain standards that allow the optimum health and ability to all human beings.
edit on 1-2-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 





You can't pull down your pants and take a crap in a freeway.


Sadly, I can admit that I have done this on more than one occasion.




posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
It doesn't matter what you think "Should be". It doesn't matter what your "opinion" is.

I have clearly shown, as others have, that the LAW STATES ITS A RIGHT.

And that using an automobile for traveling purposes is A RIGHT that cannot be regulated or taxed.

Tough cookies cry babies. If you don't like the law get it changed.

Sitting here lying your rear off and spouting your wishful fantasies of totalitarianism won't change reality.

The reality is the Judges and the Courts rule in favor of the LAW if you KNOW IT and can SHOW IT.

Don't like it? Go live in a country that's not a Republic. Here in a Republic, the rule of LAW reigns. Only if you know it and know how to show it though. That's why folks without a clue get screwed constantly. They just accept what hits them without even fighting it.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by comody88
reply to post by Human_Alien
 
Although I tend to agree with just about any law that gives us more freedom and less gov't restrictions I really don't see how driver licenses are unconstitutional



The roads are already paid for by the people, the car is paid for by the person.
Everyone has a right to travel in the constitution. The method used has never been taxed because everything is already owned by the people - horses did not require an ongoing fee paid to the government back in the day and neither should cars now.
There are many places that are hard to get to in this day and age because you can not get there by walking - highways, motorways etc. Therefore if people can not walk along a motorway to get where they are going but have to pay to travel on top of paying for the roads through tax then I think that is infringing on their inalienable right to travel where ever they want



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
I think the freedom to chose a method of mobility comes from trains, buses, airplanes, etc etc. Which, again, I believe should be freely available to the people within our own borders. Getting a license is a statement from the state that they consider you as a decent enough person whom can handle the basics of controlling a machine. Rights and freedoms have to do with what we as a human race are all entitled to because we are a human being. Operating a machine is not so freely so for all humans. Not everyone knows how to do it.


So should the state decide if I can operate a nail gun? I can, just as easily upon a busy construction sight misuse such a tool and kill many more than an automobile accident could. A private association could accomplish the same goals as a state license and it would just be an endorsement. If we need any type of permission that is to drive an automobile.



An engineer needs a license because the state acknowledged he can do the job. I, as an architect in training, have to get a license because the state will understand I can do my job, and not some random person on the street.


Typically this is registration and varies from state to state. I believe this too, states need to get out of. We have organizations such as NCEES that provide private oversight in regards to professional engineers.

State Sponsored Credentialism, for lack of a better term is a state created requirement and used as a revenue source. I would trust an engineer with an endorsement from the NCEES before I trusted one that is licensed from the state. Just as I do currently only look for doctors that belong to and are endorsed by the AMA. Private oversight has much more at stake than does Government.

I fear this is the crux of our disagreement. You seem to believe that the State should have the ability to decide if we have the ability to do anything. From driving to performing duties such as engineering.



That is why licenses exist. In ergo, such things as national ID, passports, and all that jazz have no place in a free society, as we are free to come and go because we as a species have legs and can go. A national ID, by its very nature, is an acknowledgement from the state as a right to exist. That goes against the basic rights of man.


Does not the requirement to obtain a state's ID serve the same purpose?

Another great point here that I believe hasn't been addressed. If a driver's license is only to serve as a way of ensuring a driver is capable of operating an automobile then why do I have to provide such information (as needed in California):

A thumb print
Social Security number

Those two items have nothing to do with my ability to operate a vehicle and proves a point that a license is nothing more than a revenue stream and apparently in California much, much more.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
I had a thread about this a few weeks ago. It was basically about how government cannot force you to get a license to use a car, supported by law and court precedent.

Here are some excerpts, pay close attention:



The Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution declare that governments cannot deprive any person of "life, liberty or property" without due process of law.

"The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116, 12

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon,
either by a carriage, or automobile
, is not a mere privilege which a City may prohibit or permit at
will, but a common right which he has under the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
Happiness."
Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579.


It appears unless you voluntarily waive your "right to travel by the common method of the day" to the state, you are not under its jurisdiction thereof.

For more information read this article DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS, HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
It doesn't matter what you think "Should be". It doesn't matter what your "opinion" is.

I have clearly shown, as others have, that the LAW STATES ITS A RIGHT.


So you believe that any concerns are irrelevant, and that we should all bow down before, and accept the decisions of, any legislature, for the sole reason that something is the Law.

This sounds worryingly fascist.


Originally posted by muzzleflash
And that using an automobile for traveling purposes is A RIGHT that cannot be regulated or taxed.


How can it be a ''right'' ?

What's the outcome of this supposed ''right'' ?

An adult or child getting in to a car/aeroplane and endangering the lives of all other fellow motorists/flyers/pedestrians ?

Because they have no idea how to drive/fly the machine that they are ''legally'' driving/flying, then that fact should be ignored in favour of the 'head-banging notion of ''freedom''



Originally posted by muzzleflash
Tough cookies cry babies. If you don't like the law get it changed.



I'm not an American, but I believe that every State enforces the need for a driving licence to drive on the roads.

With that in mind, I would imagine the onus is on you to change the status quo.

There is no need for anybody to change an unenforced law. I think the cry-babies are those that have to realise self-responsibility and cease their irresponsible and selfish actions.


Originally posted by muzzleflash
Sitting here lying your rear off and spouting your wishful fantasies of totalitarianism won't change reality.


The reality that you're going to potentially spend some time in the clink if you won't take the responsible action of learning how to operate a vehicle before you endanger the lives of others ?


Originally posted by muzzleflash
The reality is the Judges and the Courts rule in favor of the LAW if you KNOW IT and can SHOW IT.


Do they ?


Originally posted by muzzleflash
Don't like it? Go live in a country that's not a Republic. Here in a Republic, the rule of LAW reigns. Only if you know it and know how to show it though. That's why folks without a clue get screwed constantly. They just accept what hits them without even fighting it.


This isn't aimed at you personally, but is a comment passed whenever we get these these fantastical, anachronistic comments from people who selectively interpret ambiguous constitutional ''rights'' when they suit them:


Don't like the Federal government interfering with your ''State rights'' ? Then declare your State an independent nation.

Please don't spout comments about small government and ''State's rights'', when you are willingly utilising, and cowering behind, all the benefits of that the Federal government provides.


It's perfectly simple:

Secede from the union, use the US Constitution as your new country's constitution, and make your new found nation live in accordance to the principles and rights of that Constitution.

Of course, that would mean not leeching off, and abusing, the Federal construct of the country.




edit on 1-2-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
If the police or lower courts waste your time by putting you through crap over this, by obstructing your rights through litigation and unlawful detention, than you can SUE them.

SUE for what?

Lost wages, time lost, property lost, restitution.

Seriously I hope I get taken in, I am more than willing to suffer 6months just to WIN in the end with a higher court protecting me. Then I will sue them for illegally detaining me and confiscating my property illegally, and I WILL win that too! And I will be asking for over 1million $ you can be sure of that.

That would be the easiest job on Earth with super high pay-rate. So please someone, oppress me. I need some cash and I promise I'll get it.

edit on 1-2-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Primordial
While it pains me to say it because I'm all for personal freedom and rights without government intervention, my opinion (and I'll explain) is that *driving* is not a right.


First, although I disagree with your assertion that driving is not a right you presented your point excellently. Now onto the discussion and debate.



I agree that license renewals and vehicle registration are just revenue streams.


Agreed with you here!



And why does someone ALWAYS compare this to the second amendment? Well, if you can drive without a license because of the 'right to travel', does that mean you can own a nuclear weapon because of the 'right to bear arms'?


I think the same thing. I never understood the connection, but people think it to be logical and sometimes can connect the two.



First, 'driving' is not specifically mentioned in the constitution .. only traveling.


This is where I take an exception to your argument. Because you have asserted that it is not specifically mentioned within the Constitution, that is must not be an individual right. Again, as I have brought up before in this post I point you towards the Ninth Amendment. It reads as following:

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

Basically, James Madison included this amendment to point out that while there are specific rights listed and named within the Bill of Rights, it by no means that rights held individually are to be disparaged because of the lack of mention. Besides the political and monetary fallout of prohibition, it directly conflicted with the Ninth Amendment and the individually held right to purchase, distribute and drink alcohol.

To further this, we see via the Federalist Essays there was caution involved in including a Bill of Rights. In Federalist No 84, Alexander Hamilton rights the following; "[T]he most considerable of these remaining objections is, that the plan of the convention contains no bill of rights...." He continues on to explain that the Constitution itself already had provisions that protected the individual rights of free peoples. He argues that "Article I. section 3. clause 7..."but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law." This is in response and can be clearly seen as we, as citizens have a right to a trial based on law. In other words, the 5th Amendment.

Later on he displays again to support this by listing the numerous Articles that are again, asserted within the 5th Amendment. Such as Article III. section 2. clause 3. "The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the congress may by law have directed."

The most telling moment he brings up is "It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince." Which is to say, unless the rights are specifically stated, we have not obtained permission to exercise them. This of course is what Hamilton feared would happen with the inclusion of a bill of rights and rightly so as it is happening presently.

That was the danger that Hamilton perceived. That the Bill of Rights would be utilized to construe an argument that since there is no specific mention of a certain right, that right must not exist. He best states it here:

"Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America."

Eloquently reaffirming that the People do not surrender any rights to the Government. Further more he begins to explain how the Constitution was not established nor constructed to grant any rights, but rather limit the political power and interests of Government. How far we are removed from the principle below!

"But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns."

Thus being, citing that there is no mention of 'driving' as a right, there need not be. Saying such twists the intent of the Constitution as a limiting document towards governance to a limiting document upon the private matters of citizens.
edit on 1-2-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)


Thanks, and I starred this post for the same reason ... but lets now get to the debate.

While I am fully aware of the 9th amendment and it's implications I must ask this question(s).

Since the constitution never mentions driving specifically and also never mentions the consumption of alcoholic beverages(originally), we could assume based on the 9th amendment that both should be rights. Further, since it's not specifically mentioned, should we also assume that it is a right to engage in both at the same time? Do you (we) have a RIGHT to get inebriated then hop in our car and head on down the highway without care?

At what point is the safety of others considered when considering what we can and can't do?

Can I, lets say, pull out a constitutionally protected firearm on a crowded city street and set up some cans on the other side of the intersection and exercise my right to the pursuit of happiness with a little target practice?

In other words, do you believe everything is a right? By the logic that the ninth makes everything a right not specifically restricted by the constitution we should be able to do near anything without restriction.

We actually agree more than you know but I am forced to see the reality of some extremely bad judgment that too many in our society display on a regular basis. While the argument can be made that the lack of a license doesn't really stop someone from driving if they really wanted to, it at least ensures that the majority have displayed at least some level of competency doing so.

There is plenty that the constitution doesn't mention. I've seen the argument made that as long as it doesn't effect someone else it should not be restricted. That truly does sound logical and for the most part I agree with it. The problem I have related to the current topic is that driving on public roads does effect others.

Should blind people be allowed to just get behind the wheel regardless of training or assistance? They are citizens and protected by the constitution.

As it relates to travel should I be allowed to buy an airplane, having never even been in a cockpit, and just wing it? I'm pretty sure I could take off, not so sure about the landing part though ... but hey I have a right to travel. What if the end of my travels brings me to a fiery death as I crash my plane into a shopping mall full of people?

The problem I see with the unrestricted right to travel vs. driving is that driving encompasses more than traveling. It involves being able to properly operate a piece of machinery among the public. As I stated in an earlier post, you CAN drive without a license on your private property where the public safety is not a concern.

I am usually the one arguing for more freedom and rights, however in this case I must disagree. I feel that those for unlicensed and unrestricted driving rights might feel differently when someone crashes through their house or kills one of their children.

I absolutely believe in the right to keep and bear arms. That right is specifically enumerated without licensing requirements. I don't however believe that right extends to loading up a gun in a populated area and wildly shooting into the sky.

edit on 1-2-2011 by Primordial because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
35
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join