[Badeye]

‘I’m sorry that your child was killed by a drunk driver, but that doesn’t give you the right to pull my car over at random and search me or it. ‘

You don’t have a ‘right’ to drive. Sorry, your just wrong about this one. The others I tend to agree with. But driving is not a ‘right’ under any interpretation of the Constitution.

[Snardius]

You don’t have a ‘right’ to drive. Sorry, your just wrong about this one.

But he does have a right of protection against unreasonable search and/or seizure...

[ElkGroveDan]

But driving is not a ‘right’ under any interpretation of the Constitution.

Neither is walking down the street.

[CJ Wolf]

“You don’t have a ‘right’ to drive. Sorry, your just wrong about this one. The others I tend to agree with. But driving is not a ‘right’ under any interpretation of the Constitution.”

I think he was talking about unreasonable searches, you know amendment four, not the ‘right’ to drive.

[Clock King]

Has nothing to do with safety; it’s about the cops “showing” that they’re “doing something”, and about money — getting people on anything they can to generate revenue for the city or town. They could care less about you or your children.

[Dominick]

‘I’m sorry that your child was killed by a drunk driver, but that doesn’t give you the right to pull my car over at random and search me or it. ‘

You don’t have a ‘right’ to drive. Sorry, your just wrong about this one. The others I tend to agree with. But driving is not a ‘right’ under any interpretation of the Constitution.

Under common law you have a right to use your own property. We weakened that right by telling people that driving is a privilege. That still does not give you the right to use that property in an unsafe manner, as in being drunk. Just as the right to bear arms does not give you the right to shoot people.

Using your own car is a common law right we have given up.

[L98Fiero]

“You don’t have a ‘right’ to drive.”

When you are in possession of a valid license, you damn well DO have the right to drive. Nobody claimed that right was Constitutionally protected one. The Constitution does not grant rights, bud. It protects them.

[Filo]

You don’t have a ‘right’ to drive. Sorry, your just wrong about this one. The others I tend to agree with. But driving is not a ‘right’ under any interpretation of the Constitution.

Regardless, we still have a Constitutional protection from illegal search and seizure. . .

[mosaicwolf]

Your right. Driving is not referred to in the Constitution; neither is abortion.

[JamesP81]

You don’t have a ‘right’ to drive. Sorry, your just wrong about this one. The others I tend to agree with. But driving is not a ‘right’ under any interpretation of the Constitution.

No, but being secured in one's person, possessions, and papers against unreasonable search and seizure is a right. I don't give a damn if the car is on a public road. You don't forfeit your Constitutional rights when you start your car.

[packrat35]

He never claimed driving was a right.

[Ignatz]

You don’t have a ‘right’ to drive. Sorry, your just wrong about this one. The others I tend to agree with. But driving is not a ‘right’ under any interpretation of the Constitution.

#1 - Lighten up, Francis! No where did the poster declare, imply, or infer that the U.S. Constitution granted anyone the right to drive.

#2 - If you think rights are granted to citizens in the constitution, then you're either a troll or you don't understand Conservatism very well. The Constitution clearly defines the (very limited, or supposed to be) powers that the Federal Government may exercise, not the rights that citizens may enjoy.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Check out the 4th Amend.

[Froufrou]

Phil, that’s a fine rant but Badeye is correct about the driving. Like owning a home, owning a car and driving it within the limits of the law is a privilege.

[Kevmo]

He doesn’t state that he has the ‘right’ to drive.

Interestingly enough, during the horse-and-buggy days, the courts took on this question and determined that we DO have a right to drive. That’s been interpreted to mean “as long as there’s a horse pulling the carriage”. Somewhere between the horses and the reciprocating engine, the guvmint decided this is no longer a right but a privilege. I guess one could say he’s sorry about that as well.

[skeeter]

But driving is not a ‘right’ under any interpretation of the Constitution.

Unless, of course, you're an undocumented worker in California. Then laws are changed, seas are parted & heaven and earth are moved to facilitate your right to drive.

[elkfersupper]

You don’t have a ‘right’ to drive.

Wrong, and we've been over this before.

Driving is a Right - Not a Privilege

[monday]

“You don’t have a ‘right’ to drive. Sorry, your just wrong about this one. The others I tend to agree with. But driving is not a ‘right’ under any interpretation of the Constitution.”

You do have constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure. Just because you happen to be driving at the time, in no way lessons that right. Sorry, you are just wrong.

[WFTR]

You don’t have a ‘right’ to drive. Sorry, your just wrong about this one. The others I tend to agree with. But driving is not a ‘right’ under any interpretation of the Constitution.

Sorry, but you are the one who is wrong. The Founding Fathers wanted post roads built by the government. While the primary purpose was delivering the mail, they recognized that these roads would aid in commerce that would strengthen the economy and the nation. The government uses public money and sometimes eminent domain to build these roads. The use of these general powers over the people means that use of the roads is a public right. Like any other public right, there can be some limits set on how that right is exercised. Free speech is a right, but someone may not shout in a residential neighborhood at two in the morning. However, beyond limited and reasonable restrictions, driving is a right. Those who have persuaded you otherwise are ignorant of the intent of the Founding Fathers.

Bill

[William Terrell]

You have a right to travel. It has been well settled in law that a right implies methods of exercising that right, and certain modes of exercising a right can be regulated under the state's police power.

By saying there is no right, this immediately becomes, by default, a permission and privilege granted by the law making body. You are coming from the perception you have assumed from repeated repetitions by public officials that "driving is a privilege".

Nothing can be farther from the truth. It is just what they say.