shad@teldata.UUCP (Warren N. Shadwick) (05/22/84)
> From: guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) > Subject: Re: Drivers license regulated industry or right? > The roads are built and maintained by state governments; as such, they can > require licenses to use the facilities they provide. If the roads were > privately-built and maintained, using those roads still be a privilege > granted by the builders and maintainers. Nice opinion, but let's look at the the law. The Supreme Court has stated: "The streets belong to the public and are primarily for use of the public in the ordinary way. Their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary and, generally at least, may be prohibited or conditioned as the legislature deems proper." Packard v. Banton, 264 U. S. 140, 144 The Court went on to say ... "Moreover, a distinction must be observed between the regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right and one carried on by the government sufferance or permission. In the latter case the power to exclude altogether generally includes the lesser power to condition and may justify a degree of regulation not admissable in the former." Davis v. Massachusetts, 167 U. S. 43; Packard v. Banton, 264 U. S. 140, 145 "The State cannot diminish rights of the people." Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516 One must not forget who is 'sovereign' in this country (at least until we allow socialism to take over completely). Yours always in Freedom, Warren N. Shadwick
shad@teldata.UUCP (05/29/84)
> From: joelg@fluke.UUCP (Joel Gilman) > Message-ID: <277@tpvax.fluke.UUCP> > I don't recall my Constitutional Law class mentioning a specific right of > the individual to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. See Amendment Articles V, VII and IX which incorporates the then active Common Law of England into our judicial system. Amendment Article XIV extends this to the States. The Common Law incorporates the freedom of movement (Blackstone's Commentaries). > Let's consider why purchasing birth control devices is considered a right, > and see whether the same reasoning would apply to the operation of a > motor vehicle on public roads. For the life of me, Sir, I cannot see how birth control of any type applies to the operation of a motor vehicle. > The state argued, under the 9th amendment, that this was an exercise of the > state's police power, and inured to the benefit of the public health, safety > and morals. The state should have lost right here. The 9th Amendment is to restrain denials of unenumerated rights of the people. The state should have argued under the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." > Restricting the use of motor vehicles does not restrictt your > freedom of travel, for there are many other means of conveyance: > airplanes, trains, etc., and you can always walk. A restriction is a restriction and any double talk will not make it less a restriction. > This is a far cry from the "socialist" scheme that it may appear to be > in your Orwellian nightmare imagination. Before flaming away at yet > another gol'danged gummint regulation, give some serious thought to > the possible underlying reasons. I'll say that this gummmit is Orwellian! With the advent of drivers licenses the State now assumes, under its purported 'compelling interest' and 'police powers,' the power (note: governments do not have rights: they only have powers and duties) to suspend the 4th Amendment right in random drivers license checks and the 5th Amendment right against self incrimination in the insidious implied consent laws regarding mandatory "breathalizer" tests. What's next and how far are we to allow this unbridled exercise of power to go? The hidden underlying reason that I can see is, as in all governments, the usurpation of the rights of the people. > Do you really want the state to stop requiring driver's licenses? Yes. > Do you have any idea what that would do to your insurance rates? Insurance is for maritime and equity, not for the Common Law. > As it is, Washington will give a driver's license to just about > anyone who can breath air. Then, I ask you, Sir, why do we need them? > In a world where people still starve to death > every day, I submit there are more important things to rave about than > the state tyranny over driving priveleges. If the countries in which the people starving had the proper ethics and were not tyrannized they would not be in their present condition. Tyranny takes many shapes and disguises and must be confronted whenever possible on whatever front. Using the same logic, as presented above, this stronghold of freedom, the United States of America, should never have been created: I'm sure there were starving people in the world then, too. "Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests." George Washington Yours always in Freedom, Warren N. Shadwick Constitutional Counsel