Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: robertpaulsen
Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right

Do you authoritarian statists never tire of repeating that lie? See HERE for the truth

71 posted on 08/21/2004 8:44:06 PM PDT by Living Stone (The following statement is true: The preceeding statement is false.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: Living Stone

Thanks for the link.


74 posted on 08/21/2004 11:10:30 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

To: Living Stone
LOL........Good info !.....Puppy was getting ready to respond to that post before you did......:o)

Stay safe !

76 posted on 08/21/2004 11:41:54 PM PDT by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet. ©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

To: Living Stone
Truth? Oh, please.

Go look up The City of Spokane, v. Julie Anne Port (1986). In it, Judge McInturff blows away your "driving is a right" argument:

"As used here, "privilege" means a qualified right or a particular advantage enjoyed by a class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens, Black's Law Dictionary 1077 (5th rev. ed. 1979); see also R. Pound, Readings on the History and Systems of the Common Law 468 (3d ed. 1927), whereas "right" connotes an interest belonging to every person. Black's Law Dictionary at 1190; Pound, at 467-68. Compare 72 C.J.S. Privilege (1951 & Supp. 1985) with 77 C.J.S. Right (1952 & Supp. 1985). Hence, driving an automobile on our state's public highways is a privilege and not a right because the activity is limited to a certain class of individuals, generally those over the age of 16 years, who have passed a driver's license examination. RCW 46.20.031, .120.*fn2 This privilege is always subject to such reasonable regulation and control as the proper authorities see fit to impose under the police power in the interest of public safety and welfare. See State v. Scheffel, 82 Wash. 2d 872, 880, 514 P.2d 1052 (1973) (one does not have an absolute constitutional right to a particular mode of travel), appeal dismissed, 416 U.S. 964 (1974); Crossman v. Department of Licensing, 42 Wash. App. 325, 328 n.2, 711 P.2d 1053 (1985) (privilege to drive not a "fundamental right"); State ex rel. Juckett v. Evergreen Dist. Court, 32 Wash. App. 49, 55, 645 P.2d 734 (1982) (driver's license is privilege granted by State). This is because the right to a particular mode of travel is no more than an aspect of the "liberty" protected by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.*fn3 See Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33, 86 L. Ed. 21, 62 S. Ct. 24 (1941). In Reitz, the United States Supreme Court examined the privilege to travel on our public streets and highways and concluded, in 314 U.S. at 36:

[19] Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process.

[20] See also Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 59 L. Ed. 385, 35 S. Ct. 140 (1915) (states may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in the operation upon its highways of motor vehicles and it may require the licensing of drivers).

81 posted on 08/22/2004 11:20:41 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson