Replies

You've agreed to be bound by the state driving code. Like it or not, whatever it says in the state driving code is what you'll be prosecuted under, Constitution not withstanding unless we intend to void legally binding contracts when one party no longer likes what they've agreed to

The Constitution does not really apply once you sign that application for a driver's license and voluntarily agree to abide by the state driving code. At least the Constitution does not apply in the way this author seems to believe it does.

No, that is the point. There is a DUI exception to the constitution.

Now, what if when you applied for a license, you had to agree to be stopped and have your DNA taken for a national DNA database? Would you say, "Well, that is not unconstitutional because driving is a right and not a privilege?". Do you think the founding fathers would have thought traveling the highways a right and not a privilege?

Think you missed the point here. You do not have to be a licensed driver, be driving, or even own a car to be arrested for DUI. They only have to say they believe you were about to drive. Matter of fact in recent years they’ve been busting folks on bicycles and riding lawn mowers for DUI.

Sorry, but not all contracts are legally enforceable.

You can not, for example, contract yourself into involuntary servitude.

In addition, when you “contract” with a State Government for a Driver’s License, you are not contracting civilly (between equal parties as citizens) but between criminally (between a citizen and a government).

Apple has the most draconian anti-free-speech laws in America (try leaking news of an unreleased Apple product), but they can’t win a case and have you thrown in jail. The best they can do is receive a monetary judgment.

You've agreed to be bound by the state driving code. Like it or not, whatever it says in the state driving code is what you'll be prosecuted under

So, in order to insure our liberty, we should all surrender our "driver licenses" and decline to "request" a replacement.

I actually like that idea.

This is a rather long way to miss the salient point: The Constitution does not really apply once you sign that application for a driver's license and voluntarily agree to abide by the state driving code. At least the Constitution does not apply in the way this author seems to believe it does. You've agreed to be bound by the state driving code. Like it or not, whatever it says in the state driving code is what you'll be prosecuted under, Constitution not withstanding unless we intend to void legally binding contracts when one party no longer likes what they've agreed to

That's ridiculous. You're treating the government as if they had the same rights to contract as individuals do. Read the Constitution. The spirit is that if you suck from the government tit instead of being a productive member of society you should only be allowed to breathe every other day. Then you have contracts entered under duress being invalid (I grant you this might be marginal for the normal definition of duress, but I think it should qualify). Then, since the government is the only game in town (by law) when it comes to driver's licenses, how are they not a monopoly in need of being broken up, if you're going to analyze their acts in terms of contract law?