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: 8
35
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes



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


You "BELIEVE".

Well, I "KNOW" because I have studied the American Law.

It Protects Citizens. It's not Fascist. It's protecting me from Fascists who think I HAVE to be taxed because someone else is an idiot.

Don't like it? I don't care.

Actual Law > Your "Belief"




posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
What a complete nutcase and delusional human being. Anyone has the right to free travel? Sorry but I don't want someone who's not eligible or qualified (age, mental condition) to drive on the same road as me or my family.

Congrats. We've seen the most insane politician yet...and surprise surprise, he's a Republican



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
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.


Your idea is absurd. Back in those days when people rode a horse-drawn carriage, they had one or two horses... that's 1 or 2 horsepower. The motor vehicles you drive today have on the average of 160 horsepower, and some upwards of 600 horsepower. That is a weapon in the wrong hands and it must be regulated.

You have the right to travel freely by foot if you desire.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by againuntodust



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.


This is all nonsense.

Depriving someone of ''life, liberty and property'' has nothing to do with being able to drive a car without a licence.

I'm sure that the ruling of one judge in the Thompson vs Smith case, will not have any relevance in the overall law of the country, and has, more than likely, been superseded by another lower-profile judgement that doesn't fit in to some people's agendas.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
What a complete nutcase and delusional human being. Anyone has the right to free travel? Sorry but I don't want someone who's not eligible or qualified (age, mental condition) to drive on the same road as me or my family.

Congrats. We've seen the most insane politician yet...and surprise surprise, he's a Republican


Can you not read the law books for yourself? What is wrong with you?

You just make up everything as you go along?

Do Licences eliminate all illegal drivers? NO! LOL
Illegal drivers IGNORE LAWS!

Read the Law books and CITE exactly your point. Or sit down and stop spreading complete falsehoods!

If you do not agree with the law, go through the legal available channels to try to change it. Petition and form legislation to present to Congress.

The only reason our system isn't working is because all of the ignorant masses think it's a dictatorship and simply refuse to read a law book. Legal documentation is kryptonite to people or something...



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
PLEASE LEARN HOW TO READ!!!


"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.


You Have Been Defeated.
Case Closed.

Proven. Fact.

How many times do we have to post these 100s of CASE LAW EXAMPLES????



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
This is kind of silly. Yes people have the right to go and come from state to state as they please, but they don't have the right to drive a car. Driving a car is a privilege. That's why drivers licenses exist.

If there were no drivers licenses, then any schmo could drive a car, without any training or test taking.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
PLEASE LEARN HOW TO READ!!!


"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.


You Have Been Defeated.
Case Closed.

Proven. Fact.

How many times do we have to post these 100s of CASE LAW EXAMPLES????


SLAMS DOWN GAVEL!!!

OVERRULED, Mr. muzzleflash!!!! ONE MORE SILLY OUTBURST LIKE THAT AND I'LL HOLD YOU IN CONTEMPT!!



In City of Salina v. Wisden (Utah 1987): "Mr. Wisden's assertion that the right to travel encompasses 'the unrestrained use of the highway' is wrong. The right to travel granted by the state and federal constitutions does not include the ability to ignore laws governing the use of public roadways. The motor vehicle code was promulgated to increase the safety and efficiency of our public roads. It enhances rather than infringes on the right to travel. The ability to drive a motor vehicle on a public roadway is not a fundamental right it is a privilege that is granted upon the compliance with the statutory licensing procedures."

In City of Bismarck v. Stuart (North Dakota 1996): "No court has ever held that it is an impermissible infringement upon a citizen's constitutional Right to Travel for the legislature to decree that ... every person who operates a motor vehicle on public roads must have a valid operator's license.... The legislature has the constitutional police power to ensure safe drivers and safe roads."

In State v. Davis (Missouri 1988): "The state of Missouri, by making the licensing requirements in question, is not prohibiting Davis from expressing or practicing his religious beliefs or from traveling throughout this land. If he wishes, he may walk, ride a bicycle or horse…. He cannot, however, operate a motor vehicle on the public highways without … a valid operator's license."



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by windwaker
This is kind of silly. Yes people have the right to go and come from state to state as they please, but they don't have the right to drive a car. Driving a car is a privilege. That's why drivers licenses exist.

If there were no drivers licenses, then any schmo could drive a car, without any training or test taking.



The law books say you are wrong.

Sad that you don't care to read them.

You would be so easy to beat in court.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Ok I'm not expert but I think it is insinuated that you have a constitutional right to travel (as in nobody has the right to stop you without legally detaining you or under your consent), in order to drive (goods) down the road for commerce, you look at a different set of commerce laws (codes not laws).



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
PLEASE LEARN HOW TO READ!!!


"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.


You Have Been Defeated.
Case Closed.

Proven. Fact.

How many times do we have to post these 100s of CASE LAW EXAMPLES????


If this is indeed the case and proves the right to unlicensed driving, why has every case brought before a court for driving without a license not been thrown out? You would think lawyers would be jumping all over this as a sure win.

Seems the case is not closed. I've seen plenty of case law establishing the right to travel, not so many establishing the right to operate an automobile unlicensed.




and to pursue happiness and safety


How can I enjoy my pursuit of happiness and safety on the public highways without some form of regulation to ensure that others have demonstrated an ability to operate their automobiles safely?



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Really? I thought you were going to provide a legit argument. Alright, cool.

To acquire a driver's license you need to:
-Take permit test.
-Pass to drive with an adult in the vehicle with you.
-Wait for the proper amount of time to get your license.
-Take driver's test.
-Get your license if you pass.
-Congrats, now you have a license because you passed the test to ensure you know how to operate a vehicle.

Now, let's see if you actually read my post or not:
Did I say drivers don't break the law? Of course we do. Many (including you and I) go over the speed limit in some (if not many) instances. Many drivers are intoxicated while driving. Many talk on the cell phone while driving. ETC.

But let's say you remove the License and the Tests to operate a vehicle and now you can just Drive. Do you really want someone who's mentally unstable to drive on the same road as you? Do you want someone who's not Qualified to operate a vehicle on the same road as you?

I'm probably the biggest patriot on this web site but goddamn, this is the most moronic argument a politician has ever brought up.

Absolutely insane.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Yes actually. I'd say that not for personal repair work though. Like I said, unless your in the public forum, do what you want on the land you own. But if your on a construction site? Tools should be covered with the permit to work there. Which I think they are. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Private accreditation? I agree. It's good. Competition for increased standards at the lowest cost. But the government should still register it. If a private organization wants to, they should have the right to.

I believe the state, not the federal government, should maintain the right to public safety through accrditation checks and balances. If private companies do it too, then they should have the right to compete with the government. Not licensing for cars however, as again, that's the general public forum.

I agree with the thumb print and everything else. A license should be what it always has been. A statement from the government that you have the skills to do your job. This is crucial to maintain order and standards. The government has to compete with the world. Lower the standards and you suffer.

But like I said, there's plenty of id and licensing that's useless. That's not to say licenses are useless. that's to say the state makes licenses for stupid things. In my honest opinion you really only need licenses for construction work, cars, guns, food and water, and medical. Perhaps I'm forgetting a few, but that covers the right to food water and stability. That does not mean that they should interject certain aspects of things and force certain ways. Just have a man from the government make sure the animals aren't being harmed at a farm, that the crops don't have diseases, that the gun owner isn't nuts, etc etc. No regulations, no bureaucratic nonesense. Just a yearly observation of standards.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


Not so fast buddy. You aren't reading deep enough.

The motor vehicle code was promulgated to increase the safety and efficiency of our public roads.



Ever read Title 18 USC 31???


"Motor vehicle" means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.


Look it up. Mr. Wisden Lost because he had signed a contract agreeing to follow the Motor Vehicle Code. Therefore he was participating in Commerce.

Nice try, but you aren't going to win this one.

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

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



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
You "BELIEVE".

Well, I "KNOW" because I have studied the American Law.


''Believe'' is a turn of phrase, so as I can pass judgement without sounding overly arrogant.

If you have studied American law, then I'm sure that you will be able to advise the 150 million+ drivers in the US how to legally drive without having to worry about acquiring and paying for a license !

In fact, tell us all about that one here on ATS... Good luck with that.



Originally posted by muzzleflash
It Protects Citizens. It's not Fascist. It's protecting me from Fascists who think I HAVE to be taxed because someone else is an idiot.


So, you think that a rigid set of ''rights'' and laws based upon these antiquated documents are somehow protecting you ?

You couldn't be more wrong. It's this thinking that makes citizens of the USA probably the most fleeced and ignorantly unaware population in the Western world.


Unwaveringly and unquestioningly using a set of arbitrary ''rights'', and laws based upon these arbitrary musings, is a perfect example of fascism, and how effectively it can work is exemplified by the ''head in the sand'' mentality of so many of their citizens.

Some Americans are too busy religiously trying to defend an archaic, and extremely ambiguous, 300-year-old document - that has a tenuous link to the 21st century - that they can't see the woods for the trees.


Only selfish people object to paying taxes; taxes go towards hospitals, education, care services, roads, public amenities, foreign aid, and other mutually beneficial ventures.


Have a word with yourself, man.


Originally posted by muzzleflash
Don't like it? I don't care.


I don't give a toss one way or the other.

It's the likes of you that get worked up about these things, yet all the claims to support this version of events don't stand up well, considering that, every American has to apply for a driving licence before they can legally hit the road, and if they drive without a licence, then they will be put in to jail or fined and banned from driving for a certain amount of time.

Your points look a bit silly, considering the fact that the laws applied in the US are completely different to the laws that some of you people claim to exist !


Originally posted by muzzleflash
Actual Law > Your "Belief"


My belief and applied Law > your belief and idealistic ''Laws''.

Game over .



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Technically, driving could fall under pursuit of happiness.

Do we have the right to travel as free citizens?


Travel does not equal driving. There were no interstate freeways or even paved roads between towns at that time.

While I like the idea of not having to have a license, it's not logical to do away with a drivers license. The license is a certificate that proves you have been screened and passed as safe to drive by the state. If you take that away, it'd be anarchy on the roads and there'd be a huge lack of accountability.

Just think about how many times you've seen people cut off or endangered on the freeway, and then think that those people were likely certified to drive legally.

Driving SHOULD be a privilege, but travel is definitely a right.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Guerrero v. Ryan (1995) 272 IL.App.3d 945, 209 IL.Dec 408, 651 NE2d 586 app.denied 163 IL.2d 556, 657 NE2d 621 cert.den 516 US 1180 (state can suspend license already issued if lack of insurance is discovered, drivers license not a basic constitutional right)


A Licence isn't a right. It's a privileged tax on commercial activity.

You don't have a right to use the highways for commerce, as they are public property. It's regulated and taxed.

But the public does have the right to travel on those highways through any means for various purposes. Just not to make $. That's a privileged the people agreed upon and instituted into law through the "Motor Vehicle Code" because the roads were congested with commercial activity.
edit on 1-2-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Primordial
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.


This is to say, that while I strongly believe in the Ninth Amendment, I do also strongly believe in sound regulation and just laws. A law that serves for the public safety is just. I cannot call licensing a just law though. It has no merits other than revenue and as I pointed out, in some states much more. That being required to provide a thumb print and your social security number. Those two items as required in some states do not prove me to be a capable and competent driver. Yet, proponents of a driver's license ignore those items and fall back on "it makes the roads safer".

Which I am sure we can agree, a license doesn't do such a thing. My argument is with the process, which is the state charging you for your preferred mode of private transportation; that being an automobile.


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.


But again, arguing that a license somehow guarantees that those who access the public roads will be competent solely upon receiving a license just isn't true. So why even have the process? The laws and regulations pertaining to the roads and an automobile provide the framework in which we operate such a machine. Those laws are not unjust and they are sound (for the most part-different thread.)

Even a licensed driver runs the risk of overstepping their own right to travel by private vehicle runs the risk of endangering another. This is why I say the laws and regulations of the road work just fine.


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


No and common sense rules the day on this one. It is reasonable to restrict and regulate drivers that are incapable of following the rules of the road from the start. I am sure a majority of blind people know their limitation and have qualms about not being able to drive.



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.


This is similar to the argument that you hear that you pointed out earlier. If what I do does not infringe upon the rights of others, I should be allowed to do it. Which in this case, holds true because anyone with proper training to operate a much more complex piece of machinery.

It is also to note that not all aircraft pilots need a license to fly. An ultralight single-seat needs no license to fly.

Considering the nature of flying, I see no problem with requiring a license to fly an airplane, that requires much more skill and know with all to do so safely. Radio operation, instrument operation, visual flight rules, instrument flight rules, understanding of airspace classifications and most off the potential to slam into a jet that is carrying 200+ people.

Here is the FAA requirements to receive your certificate:

be at least 17 years
have a current FAA third-class medical certificate
log at least 40 hours of flight
have at least 20 hours of flight with an instructor
have at least 10 hours of solo flight
pass the FAA Private Pilot Airmen Knowledge written test
pass a FAA Private Pilot flight exam

Again, given the complexity of flying, the regulation and licensing of such is sound in my opinion. Thank you for your time to debate such a topic.
edit on 1-2-2011 by ownbestenemy because: didn't close a quote...



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

My belief and applied Law > your belief and idealistic ''Laws''.

Game over .


What applied laws?

Bet you can't link a single one that stands up to 1minute of scrutiny (simple cross-referencing will show you don't even understand what you are reading, as exampled above).

The law you link will be true, but you will misunderstand it.

Driving = Commerce
Motor Vehicle = Commerce



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
This is all nonsense.

I'm sure that the ruling of one judge in the Thompson vs Smith case, will not have any relevance in the overall law of the country, and has, more than likely, been superseded by another lower-profile judgement that doesn't fit in to some people's agendas.


Declaring Supreme Court rulings as nonsense makes your post lack any merit. Those rulings, would have to be overturned in other rulings at the high court. No lower court can declare irrelevant nor supersede it.

Plus, it wasn't a ruling by one judge. I know you have already explained that you are not an American, but be careful when trying to speak with authority on a subject you don't know.




top topics



 
35
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join