That one’s easy: don’t violate the law, and pay your fines. I want an unsafe driver off the road.
Make up your mind. Did he screw up or is he a scofflaw? Are we forcing people to drive illegally to survive when we suspend their licenses, or are we burdening their families to give them rides?
Not paying fines doesn’t make a person an unsafe driver or a driver that doesn’t know the traffic laws.
Some of these people are lucky enough to have family members to tote them around. Some do not and drive illegally.
I agree that people should always follow the law, but the punishment for relatively minor crimes is too harsh when it comes to restricting a person’s access to food, work, and other necessities of life.
A drivers license doesn’t affect your right to travel (assuming it exists). You are free to travel anywhere you want on alternate forms of transportation: bus, train, plane, horseback, by foot, etc.
So, if I need to get to a town 30 miles away for work, I can take a plane or bus? In a rural area? I can walk 30 miles? Or ride a horse? I’m sure the customers won’t have a negative opinion of me for riding a horse to their location and will provide a proper livery stable for the horse’s care when I get there. Or at least a feed trough.
Seriously, though, those are not practical or customary modes of travel. If the right to travel means anything, it means that I can travel by customary means so that I would arrive at times and in methods that the rest of society does.
Again, would an abortion law survive scrutiny if it said that a woman had to ride a horse to the appointment? After all, she simply has a right to an abortion, not the right to ride in a car to get there.
This is a good issue. As a matter of common practice, you can travel by airplane or bus or train. Does that mean you can also buy any of these vehicles and operate them as you wish?
The general principle had been that the government’s power to regulate the operation of vehicles is separate from the power to regulate travel. Essentially, as long as you have the ability to travel freely as a passenger, your right to travel is unrestricted.
That’s a pretty tangled argument. If you’re saying that certain modes of travel should be unregulated because they’re “customary” then how can you claim that the most customary of all travel means - by foot or animal - do not fulfill the needs of travel? The regulation of travel by automobiles and airplanes arose because they were not customary means of travel. You can’t point to any era when car travel was both common and unregulated so there’s no way you can claim that such a situation is customary.
Under the rubric of “driving is a privilege, not a right”, states can abuse their power by making the “privilege” contingent on any number of criteria that don’t have anything to do with driving. Thus, they can use the “privilege” to coerce people in various ways.
For example, in California (and I expect in many states), you can lose your driving license if you fall behind in child support payments. One reads horror stories from time to time along the general lines of “Man falls behind in child support, loses driving license, can’t get to work, loses job, loses car, loses home, now on welfare, living under bridge”. The underlying fallacy is in the notion that the driving privilege should be tied to anything unrelated to driving.
Similarly, some states have rules for teenagers about their academic progress, that their driving privilege can be withheld if they don’t maintain a certain grade average or if they drop out of school.
Some states seem to recognize that driving is sometimes a right and sometimes a privilege. Driving a farm vehicle on public roadways is allowed in some situations without requiring that the driver be licensed or even of legal age. Some states allow drivers with suspended licenses (even for DUI) to drive for work related purposes.
Travel by foot or animal is not the customary means of travel along the highways in the year 2015.
You are right that in no era was car travel common and unregulated. But there was an era where customary travel (horse and/or buggy) was common and unregulated. Today car travel is the accepted means of getting from point A to point B. Should it now be regulated (the Hendrick case I cited was in an era where car travel was usual and “abnormally” dangerous to the roads) or at minimum, be subject to more scrutiny than waiving it away as a mere privilege? I think it should.
Regulation was not needed as the danger posed by horses and buggies was minimal.
Given the inherent sloppiness that all many *licensed *drivers operate with combined with the inherent potential danger of high speed automobiles I have no problem with the regulation of operating motor vehicles. Travel is a right, operating heavy machinery used for transportation is not, no matter how ‘regular’ it is.
And while at it even more notably there’s the marking the Driving License or State ID with a person’s status in the sex offender registry. That turns the document, which is supposed to be evidence of being trained to drive, into a way to expose them every time they are asked for ID.
Yes, there is a tendency to use the driving privilege as a cudgel to address other issues, often with counterproductive effects, that is based on its perceived necessity.
That is separate from the notion of whether it is licit for the state to require the evidence of being a trained driver (who has not incurred too many violations) in order to operate a motor vehicle to begin with.
(and lest we lose the plot altogether, the original question’s answer is still NO, there is no SCOTUS ruling that removes the driving licensing authority of the states… the argument here is as to how that authority is to be exercised)
I’ll go along with the fiction that licensing requirements somehow show a qualification for driving. I haven’t shown the state since I was 16 years old that I was able to operate a car. My test consisted of driving from the state police barracks, through a neighboring parking lot and returning. In the process running the only stop sign on the course. 
The officer passed me anyways.
But as I said, for the purposes of debate, I’ll agree that licensing is appropriate to ensure safe drivers. If so, shouldn’t the licensing be subject to strict due process considerations, restricted only as it relates to that safety, because it is the only practical mode of travel for people in a rural area? The other examples of hiring drivers, riding horses, walking, etc. are simply not practical for most people.
What good is a general right to travel if one cannot utilize any particular mode of travel? I don’t mean to drag abortion into the thread, but courts strike down regulations peripheral to it and against it in a heartbeat.
Take guns, for example. Suppose a state outlawed pistols, rifles, and shotguns. A person challenges the shotgun ban and posters and the courts say that yes, you have a right to bear arms but not particularly bear a shotgun. Rinse and repeat for pistols and rifles. IOW, a general right assumes a particular right to do certain things which are part and parcel of the general right.
You can’t say that there is a right to travel while excluding from that right the only practical means to travel.
I think this reply to the post in the OP’s link best sums up the legal implications of the cases cited.
WhyNot: So, you’re just going to leave us hanging here? What was your brother’s reaction?
There is nothing stopping one from being driven around by another person, or using other methods of transportation. Anyone has the right to apply for a driver’s license - very few restrictions there to my knowledge, but if you demonstrate that you cannot operate a vehicle safely or refuse to abide by your license’s restrictions (corrective lenses being the most common restrictions) then for the safety of the public you will not be allowed to operate the vehicle.
Here’s the problem: There are restrictions on firearms. Pistols and shotguns are not restricted, but fully automatic weapons are heavily regulated and have been since the Prohibition era. The US government felt that handguns are acceptable for personal defense, and shotguns & rifles needed for hunting. But felt there was no legitimate reason for a citizen to carry a B.A.R. or AK-47 not converted to semi-automatic.
Furthermore, convicted felons are restricted from owning firearms in many states , having demonstrated that they are not responsible citizens. If a person does not demonstrate basic competence in operating a motor vehicle they are in the same boat, albeit without the felony conviction.
We can, and we do. Again - any citizen and many non-citizens can apply for a vehicle license. No-one, save perhaps those completely incapable of operating a vehicle (the completely blind, for example) is rejected from the process.
Complete silence. Bliss.
:eek:
Wow, and here I thought the Grammar Police were only armed with Sharpies and text editors! They’ve got lawyers, too!
Ok, now THAT person, s/he needs to be kept away from motor vehicles, firearms, schedule controlled substances, federal property, businesses that sell alcohol, or within 500 feet of schools and playgrounds.
I concede that restrictions based on safety are constitutional. I don’t believe that is really the purpose of the restrictions for the reasons I have said. But nonetheless I agree that it would survive rational basis review.
However, the argument that I could hire a private car service, walk, ride a horse, or some other alternate mode of travel, IMHO, doesn’t pass the test for revoking a license on less than full due process consistent with a fundamental right. I’m not sure of your financial situation, but I and most others I know cannot hire a driver. It’s beyond the scope of an average person’s financial means.
Likewise walking and riding a horse do not allow people to travel in the customary means of getting from point A to point B. It would be more dangerous to travel to have a horse or a pedestrian on a highway not keeping the prevailing speed of traffic.
Your points about felons and firearms are instructive, but in that instance, there is a rational link between a person who has shown a propensity to commit criminal activity not being allowed to own a gun. A person who fails to pay fines or child support does not likewise show a failure to operate a vehicle safely.
For there to be a meaningful right to travel, and I believe it is a right consistent with history and tradition, a person must be able to utilize the most common and customary means of travel, with the state only being allowed to revoke that right consistent with due process, not hand waiving it away as a mere privilege.
Conversely, I strongly beleive that giving a person an absolute right to drive a motor vehicle is irresponsible as a society. It would allow irresponsible drivers free leeway to abuse a system that is already extremely weak in punishing neglectful and malicious drivers.
I was car-free for many years, and still am in many ways (we have a household car but my wife uses it). I lived and chose circumstances that allowed me to do this. I had to make life choices
Financial considerations should be at the bottom of the list. If you cannot hire a driver then how are you maintaining a vehicle that you own? This is not an expense-free venture you are talking about.
Wheras walking, cycling, and public transportation are. They may not be as convenient but human rights are not about convenience.
Pedestrians have been walking on our roads for quite a while. There are roads besides high-speed interstates, for the record.
I don’t entirely disagree with the latter points, but those are not the circumstances I am concerned about. I am referring to people who demonstrate they are unwilling to safely operate a vehicle (i.e. ran down pedestrians cyclists, or habitually ignored critical traffic laws, or was frequently operateing the vehicle drunk). I think suspending a drivers license over child support is a state abusing a system. But for not paying fines? What kind of fines? Failure to pay traffic fines is an example of serious scofflaw that would make me question their willingness to operate a vehcile safely.
The person can utilize the most common means of transportation, but he has no inherent right to operate it. As it stands we give all persons the right to show they can operate a motor vehicle in a what is an extremely lenient test. We even give them a chance to operate vehicles before they reach the age of majority where they would have all their rights as a citizen. As a society we have shown an almost pathetic reluctance to remove that license even after a driver has demonstrated they are a menace with their vehicle. Therefore I rankle a the idea that we have a “right” to operate motor vehicles as we please. In the USA we practically operate as if driving was a right in society already with only the occasional reminder that it isn’t a right holding back a flood tide of abuse.
In my experience, the more a person thinks they have a right to operate a motor vehcile on the road, the more the are likely to be an abusive driver. Perhaps it is simply a case that people are better behaved when they are guests on the roadways and should behave accordingly.
I’m not advocating an “absolute” right. Just one that is consistent with the protections that we have for all other constitutional rights. I’m not sure how you base your contention that the system is “extremely weak” for punishing people. It is extremely arbitrary and capricious; licenses can be suspended for almost nothing as it is considered a “privilege.”
That is fortunate for you. Others don’t have that luxury. There is no obligation to live inside city limits and to construct one solely for the purpose of avoiding this argument would go against history and tradition whereby people are allowed to choose where they live and have ready access to travel to allow them to go places where they can get necessities of life.
Keeping an old beater car is far less expensive that hiring a driver. I’m not saying it is expense-free or that the government should provide transportation. But a person should have the right to maintain a vehicle customarily used for transportation and use it. That right should only be taken away on a strong showing by the state that the person is dangerous by using that vehicle.
Of course they are. We cannot place an undue burden on abortions or free speech or gun rights. The fact that there is some unreasonable alternative way to exercise a right has never been the standard. No law against writing an article would be allowed because the writer could merely speak it in the town square. People are allowed to exercise fundamental rights in the most efficient and customary manner that society permits.
And what if the only reasonable way from point A to B is on a high speed interstate?
How does not paying a fine show an inability to operate a vehicle?
What abuse? If you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, consistent with the safeguards imposed for other constitutional rights that this individual will be a danger on the roads, then where is there abuse? If you have specific complaints about how certain drivers are allowed to continue to menace the highways, then I might be agreeable to the changes so long as they are consistent with due process protections.