Replies

All of the phrases, highlighted in bold lettering, are the "socialist phrases," with no constitutional basis, that judges, who are obviously, more interested in protecting the "state's" power versus individual liberty, have spewed through the years in their idiotic decisions.

I hope you gag on them as badly as I do.

"this authority to prescribe reasonable requisites for the "privilege" of driving on the public highways is inherent in state and local govts) State v. Booher (Tenn.Crim.App 1997) 978 SW2d 953"

state has legitimate interest in requiring financial responsibility of drivers) Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 87 RI 226, 139 A2d 869

"...The right to travel granted by the state..."

The legislature has the constitutional police power to ensure safe drivers and safe roads.");

"The right to operate a motor vehicle is wholly a creation of state law; it certainly is not explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution"

It is subject to reasonable regulation by the state, pursuant to the police power granted by the Constitution.

"A] state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles - those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. ... This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states and essential to the preservation of the health, safety, and comfort of their citizens." Hendrick v. Maryland (1915) 235 US 610"

In the public interest the state may make and enforce regulations reasonably calculated to promote care on the part of all, residents and non-residents alike, who use its highways. ... The state's power to regulate the use of its highways extends to their use by non-residents as well as by residents." Hess v. Pawloski (1927) 274 US 352.