Posted on 10/11/2010 12:46:11 PM PDT by djf
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT
To amend Title 40 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to motor vehicles and traffic, so as to repeal Chapter 5, relating to drivers' licenses; provide for a short title; to report the findings of the General Assembly regarding the constitutionality of certain laws relating to drivers' licenses; to provide for an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA:
SECTION 1. This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Right to Travel Act."
SECTION 2. The General Assembly finds that: (1) Free people have a common law and constitutional right to travel on the roads and highways that are provided by their government for that purpose. Licensing of drivers cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of an inalienable right; (2) In England in 1215, the right to travel was enshrined in Article 42 of Magna Carta: It shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water, saving his allegiance to us, unless it be in time of war, for some short space, for the common good of the kingdom: excepting prisoners and outlaws, according to the laws of the land, and of the people of the nation at war against us, and Merchants who shall be treated as it is said above. (3) Where rights secured by the Constitution of the United States and the State of Georgia are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate these rights. The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon an individual because of this exercise of constitutional rights; (4) American citizens have the inalienable right to use the roads and highways unrestricted in any manner so long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. The government, by requiring the people to obtain drivers' licenses, is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law and constitutional right to travel; (5) In Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Potter Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that the right to travel "is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association...it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." The Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; and we hold that the right to travel is so fundamental that the Framers thought it was unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights; (6) The right to travel upon the public highways is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will but the common right which every citizen has under his or her right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his or her inclination along the public highways or in public places while conducting himself or herself in an orderly and decent manner; and (7) Thus, the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the citizens' right to travel upon the public roads by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive the right and convert that right into a privilege.
SECTION 3. Title 40 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to motor vehicles and traffic, is amended by repealing Chapter 5, relating to drivers' licenses, and designating said chapter as reserved.
SECTION 4. This Act shall become effective upon its approval by the Governor or upon its becoming law without such approval.
SECTION 5. All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed.
sounds very libertarian
who wrote it
and I wonder why
Won’t. Go. Anywhere.
Can you picture them saying "owning a gun is a privilege," as they say about driving, were it not for the 2nd Amendment?
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Bookmark for later
oh wow
i didn’t think of that and yet that makes sense
but isn’t Ga pretty red except for Atlanta?
Was it Ga that passed a photo ID for everyone?
From the guy who brought you this bill:
http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/fulltext/hb870.htm
Based on that (also he’s a Republican from Marietta), I can’t reach the same conclusion.
Licensing is partly to assure responsibility and partly to control the masses. Lacking a license does not deprive you of the right to travel, as you can walk, bike or take a bus or train; and I can find no constitutional right to travel conveniently!
How long after cars were invented did it take a government to decide who could and could not drive one?
Do I believe the Constitution is a living document? NO. However I do believe that laws are written evolving past this document alone and that people need common sense when dealing with modern conveyances like automobiles.
If those in charge have it there way, there would be no rights, everything would be a privilege subjects to the whims of the gov’t.
Based on what?
It doesn't matter if he's republican. Some of them want amnesty and are willing to give illegals the right to drive, vote, etc.
A team of horses and a loaded wagon weigh much more than a Geo.
And potentially are far more unpredictable and hard to control.
Read the text of the bill summary and the points it makes. There is no "convenience" in automobile travel in modern day America - about a handful of cities would provide one to live without extensive use of an automobile. Revoking said right is essentially revoking the right of an individual to make a living.
Furthermore, as the summary provides, the Articles of Confederation incorporated a similar Right to Travel, but was dropped in the Constitution as it was considered too obvious to require. We hear similar stories of those arguing against any of the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd. It is more than fortunate that our founding fathers did incorporate the text that they did in the Bill of Rights - the statists would claim similarly that owning a gun is a privilege.
About time.
If the Founding Fathers had ever imagined a day when government would require licensing of vehicle and driver, they would have included a “right of vehicular travel” in the Bill Of Rights. Methinks the only reason it’s not there is it was inconceivable to them.
Here in GA, licensing a car is little more than it runs well enough to put plates on it (and does not excessively pollute for those in metro Atlanta), and licensing a driver is little more than once-demonstrated ability to parallel park. Such rules are so vapid as to warrant their elimination.
I posted a link to what. That "what" was another piece of legislation he proposed. You're welcome to read it and reach your own conclusion.
Wikipedia:
“The first driver’s license of sorts was issued to the inventor of the modern automobile, Karl Benz, in 1888. Because the noise and smell of his Motorwagen resulted in complaints by the citizens of Mannheim, Benz requested and received written permission by the Grand Ducal authorities to operate his car on public roads.[1]
“Up until the start of the 20th century, European authorities issued driver’s licences similarly ad hoc, if at all.[1] The first locality to require a mandatory driving licence and testing was Prussia, on 29 September 1903. The Dampfkesselüberwachungsverein (”steam boiler supervision association”) was charged with conducting the tests, which were mainly concerned with the drivers’ mechanical aptitude.[1] In 1910, the German imperial government mandated the licensing of drivers on a national scale, establishing a system of tests and driver’s education requirements that would serve as a model for the licensing laws of other countries.[1]
“As automobile-related fatalities soared in North America, public outcry provoked legislators to begin studying the French and German statutes as models.[2] On August 1, 1910, North America’s first driver’s licensing law went into effect in the U.S. state of New York, though it initially applied only to professional chauffeurs.[3] In July 1913, the state of New Jersey became the first to require all drivers to pass a mandatory examination before receiving a license.[4]
Wikipedia Article: “Driver’s license”:
“The first driver’s license of sorts was issued to the inventor of the modern automobile, Karl Benz, in 1888. Because the noise and smell of his Motorwagen resulted in complaints by the citizens of Mannheim, Benz requested and received written permission by the Grand Ducal authorities to operate his car on public roads.[1]
“Up until the start of the 20th century, European authorities issued driver’s licences similarly ad hoc, if at all.[1] The first locality to require a mandatory driving licence and testing was Prussia, on 29 September 1903. The Dampfkesselüberwachungsverein (”steam boiler supervision association”) was charged with conducting the tests, which were mainly concerned with the drivers’ mechanical aptitude.[1] In 1910, the German imperial government mandated the licensing of drivers on a national scale, establishing a system of tests and driver’s education requirements that would serve as a model for the licensing laws of other countries.[1]
“As automobile-related fatalities soared in North America, public outcry provoked legislators to begin studying the French and German statutes as models.[2] On August 1, 1910, North America’s first driver’s licensing law went into effect in the U.S. state of New York, though it initially applied only to professional chauffeurs.[3] In July 1913, the state of New Jersey became the first to require all drivers to pass a mandatory examination before receiving a license.[4]”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.