TO ALL:
"Being arbitrarily deprived of your right to drive [without due process - as per this 'law'] clearly infringes on life and liberty."
First, OmahaFields:
Stop chanting "it's the law" for one moment, and try to grasp the concept of intent.
Second, tpaine;
There's nothing intrinsically wrong -- constitutionally -- with licensing one for fitness to drive a car. However, the intent of this perfectly reasonable law has been completely misappropriated. Now I deliberately use the word misappropriated -- it's a sort of stealing that concomitantly involves a breaking of trust.
When applied to money, misappropriation of funds is, itself, ILLEGAL.
Now we all know that licensing has little to do with safety, and everything to do with raising money and tracking your whereabouts, which is really non of the States -- or anyones -- business! It's a shakedown racket. Friendly fascism at best. Click here: >http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Specter_FriendlyFascism_FF.html< Does anybody seriously contend that the founding fathers would have approved of such shenanigans?
One would think there ought to be a law -- or check -- against the misappropriation of the LAW. There is. It's called The Constitution Of The United States Of America.
Keeping in mind that the Intent of the constitution is that -- first and foremost -- it is supposed to apply to ALL the people of the United States(the first three words are "We the people")and not -- arbitrarily -- some people. I offer the following quotes:
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." (James Madison)
It's been said that the law is the rule of reason. But one should ask ones self... by whose reasonning?... and by whose rules?(siznartuf)
Intent does not matter. What matters in what is written. To try to interpret the intent and override the words of the law is judicial activism.
It's strange. Have we gone so far afield that judges that follow the constitution (that includes the INTENT of the founding fathers)are considered activist?
Well said. -- Its quite evident that there is a clear intent -- a presumption of freedom, - built into the document.
Also, there is a difference between striking down a law -- as unconstitutional -- and legislating from the bench, that is: reading INTO the constitution rights and privileges that are not granted nor implied.
Yes indeed. -- And reading [in the 5th & 14th amendments], that it is our rights to life, liberty, or property that cannot be deprived; -- pretty well covers any rights not enumerated.
Being arbitrarily deprived of your right to drive [without due process - as per this 'law'] clearly infringes on life and liberty.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong -- constitutionally -- with licensing one for fitness to drive a car.
I'm not saying there is. The licensing of drivers is a reasonable way to regulate fitness. -- The 'law' at issue is an unreasonable, unconstitutional regulation, for the reasons I stated above.
However, the intent of this perfectly reasonable law has been completely misappropriated.
I disagree that the law is at all 'reasonable', as it violates due process. The State has to prove you 'unfit to drive' using due process of law. -- It cannot decree that anyone is 'guilty of unfitness' merely because they smoked a joint last week, or had a drink yesterday.