Driving is not a Privilege. Driving is a Right.

Our States are Lying to us. Driving IS NOT a Privilege. Driving is a
Right.

We have the Right of Transit Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our
Public Highways:

"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." - Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S.
270 (1900) - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/179/270.html#274

What is the Transit Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public
Highways? A couple hundred years ago, it would have been the horse and
buggy, and NOBODY would have denied we had the Right to drive a horse
and buggy at those times. Today, it is the automobile, and as such, we
have the Right to Drive the Automobile for Personal Travel.

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go
where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of
others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The
Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to
transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or
automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or
prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this
Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions,
travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public
places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner,
neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be
protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." II Am.Jur.
(1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to
transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or
automobile is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited
at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Slusher v. Safety Coach Transit
Co., 229 Ky 731, 17 SW2d 1012

"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." Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579; Teche Lines vs.
Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784

Yet, even with all this, people have been so brainwashed over the past
decades, they have began to believe the lie, and even defend it
ferociously, claiming there safety depends on it, dispite the fact that
Driver Licensing offers no enhancment to safety, within Due Process of
Law, that didn't already exist via Reckless Endangerment Laws.

If someone has a respect for the safety of others, and know they can't
drive safely, they simply won't drive of their own accord, without the
need for the absence of a license.

If someone has no respect for the safety of others, and know they can't
drive safely, their going to drive anyway, with or without a license.

Driver licensing can only determine if one CAN drive safely. Thing is,
virtually everybody CAN drive safely. The question usually is if they
WILL drive safely. Driver licensing CAN NOT determine if someone WILL
drive safely. Nor can the lack of a driver license determine if
someone WILL drive safely.

The ONLY thing that can deter those who WILL NOT drive safely is
Prosecution for driving dangerously, aka Reckless Endangerment. And,
Driver Licenses is not required to prosecute someone for Reckless
Endangerment.

Driver Licenses were originally intended only for Commercial use of the
Public Highways. While Citizens DO have a Right to the Transit
Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways, Commercial
entities DO NOT have such a Right, and can Rightfully be required to
obtain a License to use the Public Highways for Commerce.

Read my page at: http://geocities.com/proffsl/driver_licensing.html

proffsl wrote: <irrelevancy snip>
> Our States are Lying to us. Driving IS NOT a Privilege. Driving is a
> Right.
-----
Then... why is a license required...?

And why did you bother to get one...?
-----

- gpsman

gpsman wrote:
> proffsl wrote:
> >
> <irrelevancy snip>

You believe US Supreme Court Rulings concerning our Right of Transit
Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways are
Irrelivant to the question if we have a Right of Transit Ordinarily
used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways??? Interesting method
of reasoning you have developed. Invalid, therefore Irrelivant,
reasoning none the less.


> > Our States are Lying to us.
> > Driving IS NOT a Privilege.
> > Driving is a Right.
>
> Then... why is a license required...?

Ah,,,,,, Let me think,,,,,,,,,,,

Oh yea! I remember!!!

Because Our States are LYING TO US.


> And why did you bother to get one...?

You make a presumption. Regardless. People obtain licenses because
our States are violating our Right of Transit Ordinarily used for
Personal Travel on our Public Highways and if we don't submit to this
violation, our Rights will be even further violated.

Now, if you would like to consider examining the US Supreme Court
Rulings I presented originally, which you sniped as being irrelevant,
please do. Otherwise, don't bother bothering me with these pedantic
questions.

In Germany it is a privilege.
There is no law which grants a general right for driving.

If the authorities have evidence that a driver has some kind
of handicap, they can order a medic-psycho-investigation.
An expensive and thorough check of a humans physical
and much more feared: psychological fitness.

The evidence does not need to occur in traffic.
No appellation against this order possible.
No police necessary (although most evidences are reported
from officers).

About 50% of all persons already having a driving license
(witch means many hours of theoretical and practical lessons,
including tests) fail these MPU-tests and loose their licenses.
They may try (and pay!) again 3-12 months later.
It is even possible to deny riding a bicycle for lifetime!

Proffsl, be lucky! It could be much worse.

Thomas

"proffsl" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Our States are Lying to us. Driving IS NOT a Privilege. Driving is a
> Right.
>
> We have the Right of Transit Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our
> Public Highways:

You're back again? With Your Use of Capitalization to Make Your Point Look
Valid and Official?

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

gpsman wrote:
> proffsl wrote: <irrelevancy snip>
> > Our States are Lying to us. Driving IS NOT a Privilege. Driving is a
> > Right.
> -----
> Then... why is a license required...?

Because governments violate out rights all the time.

> And why did you bother to get one...?

Because exercising your rights sometimes will land you in jail.

Thomas Schäfer wrote:
> In Germany it is a privilege.
> There is no law which grants a general right for driving.

In the United States, we are supposed to have rights which are
inalienable. Meaning that because you are born, you automatically have
a set of rights.

The government has no rights, it only has powers. And it derives it's
powers from the people. And just becaue the courts may rule one way or
another, it doesn't mean that you lose a particular right. It means
the courts don't know any better than the politicians. OR, they know
better, and don't give a **** about your rights. OR, the most popular
excuse, is that the Constitution is a "living" document, or that the
meaning of the words actually change over time. Which is just
ridiculous, because that renders the Constition completely irrelevant
since a court decision can change the meaning of the words to anything
it wants. This is what some people want, as it's much easier to
control the masses in this way.

You'll hear people, who don't know any better, talk about "You don't
have a right to do [insert activity here] because the Constitution
doesn't say you can". Of course, they have it completely backwards on
how the Constitution works. You have a right to do EVERYTHING unless
the government is speficially granted a power to stop you.

For example, you don't have a right to kill someone else, because the
right to life is an inalienable right. You don't have a right to take
someone else's property, because property rights are an inalienable
right.

> Proffsl, be lucky! It could be much worse.

While that's true, it doesn't mean we lay back while our rights are
trampled on, just because "it could be much worse".

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into
the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of
moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal
liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary
for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE
1:376

"proffsl" > wrote in news:1141278130.469798.201300
@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com:

> gpsman wrote:
>> proffsl wrote:
>> And why did you bother to get one...?
>
> You make a presumption. Regardless. People obtain licenses because
> our States are violating our Right of Transit Ordinarily used for
> Personal Travel on our Public Highways and if we don't submit to this
> violation, our Rights will be even further violated.
>
You didn't answer the question. Do you, or do you not have a "valid"
license plate on your vehicle?

Doug

In article .com>,
proffsl > wrote:
>Our States are Lying to us. Driving IS NOT a Privilege. Driving is a
>Right.
>
>We have the Right of Transit Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our
>Public Highways:
>
>"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." - Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S.
>270 (1900) - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/179/270.html#274

Instead of arguing here, why not argue it in court to get the licensing
laws overturned? Assuming you have not proven yourself to be an unsafe
driver in the past (by convictions of various driving violations), or
have a volunteer with a clean driving record, cancel your driver's license,
get a ticket for driving without a license (but no other violation of
driving laws), then fight / appeal the ticket to the Supreme Court and
get a ruling.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

Thomas Schäfer wrote:
> In Germany it is a privilege.
> There is no law which grants a general right for driving.

It's exactly the same here, Thomas. The original poster is a
well-known troll here in r.a.d. Please don't dignify his stupid
diatribes with your reason and logic. He doesn't deserve it.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; done that)