Quote:
Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan
The Supreme Court has ruled on a number of occasions that all RIGHTS can be limited by the Government.
The supreme court has determined that there are "Fundamental rights", which have a higher bar of requirements for the government to limit them. These include the right to bear arms, freedom of speech, etc.
You have a right to do anything you want to do as long as it is not limited or restricted by the government. The limits to those rights are call laws.
Laws are what limit or restrict rights. Laws are more limited when they restrict fundamental rights.
Driving is not on the list of fundamental rights. So, driving is a "right" you can do only as long as there is no law against it.
The Supreme Court has ruled that you have a fundamental right to travel on public roads. They have not ruled you have a right to drive on public roads. Therefore your "right" to drive extends only as far as state law permits.
So, you are right to the point that it is true you have the right to do anything you want to do - you are wrong in that does not mean it can not be regulated. Since driving has not been determined to be a fundamental right, there are virtually no limits on how the state can restrict or regulate driving.
That is why it is called a privilege because you can do it with permission. An illegal driver is someone that violates the rules/laws concerning driving. Driving without a license is illegal. Driving while intoxicated is illegal.
So, yes, you can drive without a license, but, the States can pass virtually ANY law restricting that "right", up to and including putting you in jail when you drive without a license. Many states have laws about driving without a license that limits the punishment to fines.
|
Well, there you go -- our "Living Constitution" (9 un-elected representatives from the lawyer's union) have told us "Shall not be infringed" really means "infringe all you want"!
Waitaminute... can someone point to the article or amendment that says the Supremes get to "interpret" the Constitution? Oh, I remember! It's not in the contract, it's in that Supreme Court ruling, Marbury vs. Madison, where the Supremes declared themselves the sole arbiters of what our contract with the gooberment actually says.
You can declare the moon made of green cheese and unicorn poop the source of all energy in the known universe. Doesn't make it so, even with a Harvard Law degree.
Regulation? I never said Congress is forbidden from putting some ground rules on our rights -- in fact I specifically supported it. It's legal when the regulations EXPAND the right for the majority, and don't specifically discriminate against the minority. A law saying we have to stop at stop signs is an example of that -- it makes vehicle transportation possible for all of us. A law saying old people must prove they are still competent is an example of age discrimination, and it is already specifically forbidden by the law.
Sentence everybody to a day at the DMV every year if you think you can get your fellow citizens to go along with it. At least it would be constitutional. But making an old man prove he's still competent, just because he has half a century of driving experience is not only un-Consitutional, it's downright stupid.