"U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways..." -Srsly?

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@UltraVires

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.”

I disagree. We have far too many cases where people who have demonstrated gross negligence in vehicle operation are still allowed to operate vehicles or go unpunished due to the system’s desire to avoid taking their means of transportation away. The only time I see where the license is removed almost automatically is when the driver is drunk - even then they usually have to have killed somebody.

So when someone advocates that driving is a right I do raise an eyebrow and suspect they are trying to get away with something or doing some kind of lame FMOL or McVeigh experience.

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.

Given the almost sheer amount of effort it takes to lose a diver’s license I would say that they will have to alter their lifestyle if they want to keep travelling. If that means paying a buddy, getting a relative to help out or move I don’t really care. It takes a lot to lose a license - even in the aforementions ‘child support’ cases it not something that just happens - take a look at state-by state and see that this is doesn’t just happen with a missed payment. Even if you lose it some of the states let you have a temp license.

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.

In general, I agree. That said I am not terribly sympathetic to deadbeat dads (or moms) - having known a few divorcees with children I have a hard time crying for the guy who had his license pulled just after he bought a 2nd car when his ex-wife is wondering how she is going to feed the child.

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.

No really they are not. The freedom of press does not give you a press, and you have to bring your own soapbox to the town square. By extension the roads provided by the state, town, city and country require licensing to drive on, otherwise you don’t get to use them

And what if the only reasonable way from point A to B is on a high speed interstate?

Pretty rare, or an area with minimal traffic in most cases. You are actually allowed to walk (and bike) on Intersates in the more sparse areas. On the coasts I found very, very few places where only high speed interstates were the only way of getting there.

How does not paying a fine show an inability to operate a vehicle?

A single fine won’t lose you your license. When failure to pay fines is the cause for suspension. Invaribly when someone has their license pulled it is for a load of unpaid fines - which show neglectful driving and an unwillingness to pay for ones mistakes. Even then in most cases the license will be un-suspepended after payment is made.

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?

The more a person starts declaring that they have every right to be on the road the more likely that they have abused the privelge and are now insisting that it is their right to drive and thus should have no consequences. There are more than a couple of exampes of these people in the ‘Stupid Republican’ thread in the BBQ Pit.

You may notice that ‘Right to Drive’ is a huge aspect of things like Sovereign Citizen nonsense? I have yet to meet a person weho subscribes to those ideas who wasn’t an advocate for some other driving nonsense such as letting drunk people drive or feeling that stop signs are not to be obeyed if they don’t want to. I don’t want these people to have any traction, or their lightweight versions for that matter.

Driving is a privilege, and it is one our society bends over backwards to allow people to maintain. Yes one can argue that suspending a license over non-driving issues may be unfair but really I have a hard time being sympathetic your scenario of a dead-beat dad who lives far in the country surrounded only by limited access interstate highways and has no friends or relatives to driev him around.

[Senegoid]

@Saint_Cad

I think this reply to the post in the OP’s link best sums up the legal implications of the cases cited.

The trick is the surname appearing in a GLOSSA format, any person, being a commercial entity, identified by the foreign all upper case text, legally known as a GLOSSA, being the corruption of the essence of the text, must have a license in order to appear on public lands.

< . . . >

The fraud SURNAME needs a license to do anything, but if you stop acting as the account holder of such a fraud, you become free of their crime.

I just have to assume that this is a whoosh on the part of whoever posted that. Ya think?

[sbunny8]

@UltraVires

Quote: 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

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.

I disagree. I think you’re overstating the need to drive a car. There are millions of Americans who walk to work, school, etc. or they take public transportation, or they ride bicycles. And if you look worldwide, there’s only 1 motor vehicle for every 25 people on Earth. Way more people ride buses and take bicycles and walk, every day.

When we moved here, I got a job and then we looked for a place to live. I insisted that we make it a priority to find a place to live which was fairly close to my job. We found a place less than two miles away, and I ride my bicycle to work almost every day. This isn’t a “luxury”; it’s planning ahead. FWIW, over half the employees where I work also ride bicycles to work.

I don’t see anything hypocritical about saying “If you want to operate a huge metal machine that can easily kill a pedestrian, then you have to show that you’re responsible and not everyone is allowed to do that”. In fact, I think they should make it HARDER to get a driver’s license. Everyone should have to repeat the skill test and the written test at least every 10 years.

One of the great things about the USA is that you don’t need a passport to travel from one state to another. That’s not the same thing as saying you don’t need a driver’s license to operate a motor vehicle. If you don’t have a license, you can still take a bus and they won’t stop you at the state line and ask to see your travel papers. That’s what “freedom to travel” means.

[SpyOne]

@Mr.Miskatonic

A single fine won’t lose you your license. When failure to pay fines is the cause for suspension. Invaribly when someone has their license pulled it is for a load of unpaid fines - which show neglectful driving and an unwillingness to pay for ones mistakes. Even then in most cases the license will be un-suspepended after payment is made.

Wow is this wrong.
Yes, failure to pay a single fine will cost you your license. I have had my license suspended here in Virginia for failure to pay a court fine for an offense that was not a moving violation.
Reintatement of the license required paying the fine in full, plus a fee at the DMV. And not a small fee.

[Morgenstern]

This just proves that anyone with access to the internet can document anything they choose. If it wasn’t for such wonderful, honest, motivated people we’d never have know that the moon landing was a fake, that Johnson really was behind Kennedy’s assassination, or that 911 was a government conspiracy. So much effort on their part, it must be true.

[SpyOne]

@sbunny8

When we moved here, I got a job and then we looked for a place to live. I insisted that we make it a priority to find a place to live which was fairly close to my job. We found a place less than two miles away, and I ride my bicycle to work almost every day. This isn’t a “luxury”; it’s planning ahead. FWIW, over half the employees where I work also ride bicycles to work.

I don’t see anything hypocritical about saying “If you want to operate a huge metal machine that can easily kill a pedestrian, then you have to show that you’re responsible and not everyone is allowed to do that”. In fact, I think they should make it HARDER to get a driver’s license. Everyone should have to repeat the skill test and the written test at least every 10 years.

I thought this discussion had moved on to where everyone was accepting, at least for the purposes of this debate, a need to regulate the operation of a motor vehicle for safety. However many jurisdictions will remove your license for things that have no bearing on your ability to operate a vehicle safely.

Not everyone can afford to live close to their job. One or two decades ago I found that commuting 40 miles each way each day saved me over $200 a month, which more than covered my gas and car maintenance. For someone in that position to suddenly be unable to drive is, of course, very inconvenient. If he does not happen to have a neighbor with whom he is friendly who works near where he does, the cost of travel has increased to the point where he may have to quit his job.
Now, if he finds himself in that position because he got too many tickets, or failed to pay his court fines for moving violations, or even because he failed to maintain insurance on his vehicle, then that is a completely predictable consequence of his failure to operate his vehicle in compliance with safety regulations.
But is it fair to remove his right to operate a vehicle for something that has no bearing on his ability to operate it safely?

Note that I am not talking about a felony conviction. Convicted felons lose a great many of their rights, not just ones that pertain to their offense, and can only get them back after a long period of good behavior (if at all). Sure, throw driving on the pile with voting and owning firearms and all the other things felons are not allowed to do.
But unless we want to make falling behind on your child support a felony, I don’t see any reason why someone should lose the right to drive because of it.

[SpyOne]

@Mr.Miskatonic

That said I am not terribly sympathetic to deadbeat dads (or moms) - having known a few divorcees with children I have a hard time crying for the guy who had his license pulled just after he bought a 2nd car when his ex-wife is wondering how she is going to feed the child.

I am not sympathetic to anyone living the high life while their children’s other parent foots all the bills for the children.
However, I am sympathetic to someone who is working 2 minimum wage jobs and finds that that after their rent and utilities and food they don’t have enough to pay what the court said they need to pay for child support. They will fall further and further behind on their child support, and stripping them of rights and privileges because of it only hastens the day when they decide there is no incentive to working at all.

We should be able to find a way to distinguish between those who will not pay and those who cannot pay.

[sqweels]

@Mr.Miskatonic

The only time I see where the license is removed almost automatically is when the driver is drunk - even then they usually have to have killed somebody.

Where do you live? If you get pulled over with .08% blood alcohol concentration AFAIK in most states you will lose your license for at least several months even though that’s not particularly drunk.

[sbunny8]

@SpyOne

One or two decades ago I found that commuting 40 miles each way each day saved me over $200 a month, which more than covered my gas and car maintenance. For someone in that position to suddenly be unable to drive is, of course, very inconvenient.

My point is that people put themselves into that situation. They make estimates about the cost of owning a car, the future price of gasoline, the relative value of their lost leisure time spent commuting, the cost of living in one place compared to another, and they make a choice. Yeah it would suck for them if one of their unquestioned assumptions (“I have a driver’s license and always will have one.”) suddenly becomes false. Some might call that bad fortune. Others might call it failure to plan ahead. In any case, they certainly had a choice.

@SpyOne

But is it fair to remove his right to operate a vehicle for something that has no bearing on his ability to operate it safely? Note that I am not talking about a felony conviction. Convicted felons lose a great many of their rights, not just ones that pertain to their offense, and can only get them back after a long period of good behavior (if at all). Sure, throw driving on the pile with voting and owning firearms and all the other things felons are not allowed to do. But unless we want to make falling behind on your child support a felony, I don’t see any reason why someone should lose the right to drive because of it.

I agree. I’d like to see more people lose their license because they drive dangerously and not because they owe somebody money. I see the same thing happening with other licenses too. I could show you a list of literally hundreds of construction companies in Oregon who have been fined or had their licenses suspended for things like failure to file the proper paperwork or have the right kind of insurance, but I have NEVER seen a single company have their license taken away for doing poor quality work. I’m not even sure if the state agency even has the authority to do so.

[TimeWinder]

@Senegoid

I just have to assume that this is a whoosh on the part of whoever posted that. Ya think?

No, the “uppercase names aren’t really you” thing is a standard of the FOTL and sovereign citizen nutcasery.

[DrDeth]

@JRDelirious

That one’s easy: don’t violate the law, and pay your fines. I

IIRC it was noted in one SCOTUS dec that it is impossible to use a motor vehicle without violating some vehicle code or the other.

[Skammer]

In the category “appropriate sequential threads” here is that headline coupled with the next one on the page:

• U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public [Roads]
• 9 Phrases Smart People Never Use In Conversation

[Cheesesteak]

@SpyOne

But unless we want to make falling behind on your child support a felony, I don’t see any reason why someone should lose the right to drive because of it.

I agree with you on this. For offenses that involve driving, moving violations, failure to pay fines associated with moving violations, etc. I’m ok with losing your right to drive.

For non-driving issues, even felonies, you shouldn’t lose your right to drive. At a minimum, similar to some driving related restrictions, you should retain your right to drive to and from work.

[RickJay]

@Mr.Miskatonic

Regulation was not needed as the danger posed by horses and buggies was minimal.

Actually, they were probably more dangerous than cars. In big cities a great, great many people were killed by horses and horse-drawn vehicles.

It never occurred to anyone to have horse licenses because they’d just been around for so long.

[Quartz]

Now the question has been answered I’ll point out that it entirely legal to drive on roads in the UK without a license. However there is a strict restriction: you must be the Monarch.

[Hershele_Ostropoler]

The monarch or the sovereign? If the latter, presumably that’s true in any state in which the sovereign is an individual.

[Yllaria]

@Senegoid

. . . For example, in California (and I expect in many states), you can lose your driving license if you fall behind in child support payments. . . .

I hadn’t heard of that one. I’d heard of suspending Contractor’s Licenses, but not driving licenses. Looking it up, it takes a full six months to have the license suspended, and even then they don’t actually come confiscate it. 30 days overdue puts you on a list - 150 days on the list before suspension. Not sure how easy it is to “work with” child services, during those 150 days, or how I feel about the idea in general, but at least it’s not an immediate yank.

Regarding “public highways” - most people using that phrase are thinking of the Interstate Highway System, and that’s only 50 years old. Although there were some public roads before then. If you follow the links, you’ll see that in 1880 most roads outside of cities were dirt roads. From 1790 to 1880, even the dirt roads between cities were mostly turnpikes or toll roads, built by corporations.

The founding fathers lived in a time when travel was a burden. Although they might be appalled by today’s levels of bureaucracy and regulation, they also wouldn’t have much sympathy for someone who couldn’t suck it up and either move closer to work or find work closer to home - or keep their license in the first place. But that wasn’t the original question.

Regarding the OP - none of them would have had any patience with folks trying to weasel and misenterpret their way around laws.