On Guns and Abortion

Magic City Morning Star ^ | Jul 29, 2004 | Charles Cutter

[robertpaulsen]

Truth? Oh, please.

Go look up The City of Spokane, v. Julie Anne Port (1986). In it, Judge McInturff blows away your "driving is a right" argument:

"As used here, "privilege" means a qualified right or a particular advantage enjoyed by a class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens, Black's Law Dictionary 1077 (5th rev. ed. 1979); see also R. Pound, Readings on the History and Systems of the Common Law 468 (3d ed. 1927), whereas "right" connotes an interest belonging to every person. Black's Law Dictionary at 1190; Pound, at 467-68. Compare 72 C.J.S. Privilege (1951 & Supp. 1985) with 77 C.J.S. Right (1952 & Supp. 1985). Hence, driving an automobile on our state's public highways is a privilege and not a right because the activity is limited to a certain class of individuals, generally those over the age of 16 years, who have passed a driver's license examination. RCW 46.20.031, .120.*fn2 This privilege is always subject to such reasonable regulation and control as the proper authorities see fit to impose under the police power in the interest of public safety and welfare. See State v. Scheffel, 82 Wash. 2d 872, 880, 514 P.2d 1052 (1973) (one does not have an absolute constitutional right to a particular mode of travel), appeal dismissed, 416 U.S. 964 (1974); Crossman v. Department of Licensing, 42 Wash. App. 325, 328 n.2, 711 P.2d 1053 (1985) (privilege to drive not a "fundamental right"); State ex rel. Juckett v. Evergreen Dist. Court, 32 Wash. App. 49, 55, 645 P.2d 734 (1982) (driver's license is privilege granted by State). This is because the right to a particular mode of travel is no more than an aspect of the "liberty" protected by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.*fn3 See Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33, 86 L. Ed. 21, 62 S. Ct. 24 (1941). In Reitz, the United States Supreme Court examined the privilege to travel on our public streets and highways and concluded, in 314 U.S. at 36:

[19] Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process.

[20] See also Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 59 L. Ed. 385, 35 S. Ct. 140 (1915) (states may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in the operation upon its highways of motor vehicles and it may require the licensing of drivers).

[Living Stone]

Those courts and thier rulings are in error, made for the furtherance of thier statist agendas and in support of various revenue gathering streams of income from the people, not with any respect for the law.

Article VI of the Constittution says very plainly, and I quote,: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

The Ninth Amendment to our Constitution states in the plainest possible language: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Thus you can see that the Highest Law in the Land, the Constitution, provides for rights not listed. You will never convince me otherwise. The right to freely travel, unimpeded by government is, doubtlessly one of these rights.

Now you can claim that those words do not mean what they very plainly say all you want to.

The fact of the matter is that they do mean exactly what they say. Any state legislature which passes a law, any judge who upholds that law, any officer who enforces that law which is contrary to the law of the land is in fact committing a criminal act.

When will you come out on the side of law and order, instead of this reckless support of the lawless? You should be well aware that support of lawlessnes can only lead to anarchy, and then to tyranny.

[robertpaulsen]

"The right to freely travel, unimpeded by government is, doubtlessly one of these rights."

I agree.

But if you want to freely travel by car, the states are allowed to require a license as a valid exercise of their police power.

Drivers licenses are issued by the states. You are in favor of state's rights aren't you?

[Living Stone]

You are in favor of state's rights aren't you?

Not when they conflict with the rights and freedoms of the people. I am for freedom for the people, not for the freedom of states to oppress them.

Requiring permission to drive is nothing more than the exertion of power over the lives of the otherwise law abiding, for the simple purpose of coercive control and revenue gathering, the tools of despots.

You are in favor of freedom , aren't you?

[robertpaulsen]

"You are in favor of freedom , aren't you?"

Sure. But you're not describing freedom -- you're describing anarchy.

"This (driving) privilege is always subject to such reasonable regulation and control as the proper authorities see fit to impose under the police power in the interest of public safety and welfare."
-- Judge McInturff, Spokane v Port (1986)

I happen to agree.

[Living Stone]

So you call it anarchy when people do not suffer from the coercive powers of the state for the reasons of control and revenue gathering?

I stand by original assertation, that driving is indeed a right. The simple fact of the matter is that I believe in the maximum possible freedom for the individual as long as there is no damage done to anyone else, and you do not.

Did you not notice the problems that developed from unbridled government during the 20th century? What, in your opinion, does the state NOT have the power to do?

Blatant disrespect for the law by government because it does not agree with thier statist agenda is the way to tyranny. We are far down that road. Some of us wish to change directions.

You will never convince me to abandon the principles of Freedom and Liberty in a thousand years, should you live so long, so you may as well save your breath.

I will not bow to the state as a god.

[VeniVidiVici]

The flip side of the argument, succinctly stated by Judith Jarvis Thompson ..."…nobody is morally required to make large sacrifices, of health, of all other interests and concerns, of all other duties and commitments…for nine months, in order to keep a person alive."

I told my lib sister-in-law something similar to this concerning why women have abortions.

Put "succinctly", I said that women have abortions because being pregnant/having a child is *inconvenient.* At least they should be honest about it.

In a nutshell, that's what the overwhelming percentage of them are for.

She really had no rebuttal.

[robertpaulsen]

"So you call it anarchy when people do not suffer from the coercive powers of the state for the reasons of control and revenue gathering?"

I call it anarchy when people insist that state governments have no constitutional right to regulate who sits behind the wheel of a 3000 pound car or 20,000 pound truck and drive 70 mph on public highways.

[tpaine]

I call it anarchy when people insist that state governments have no constitutional right to regulate who sits behind the wheel of a 3000 pound car or 20,000 pound truck and drive 70 mph on public highways.
88 paulsen

No one here is disputing the power of a State to ~reasonably~ regulate driving motor vehicles paulsen.
As usual, you are 'crying wolf' for effect.
-- To what effect? -- This is only known to you and your shrink.

[biblewonk]

I agree with his position on guns but R v W really seems to have been a slipperly slope. Actually maybe it was just a sharp drop off. The 19th ammendment would also seem to have been the ultimate slippery slope. To many wise people it looked like it would lead to disasterously liberal thinking in politics and possibly damage the family and just look at what has happened.

[robertpaulsen]

"No one here is disputing the power of a State to ~reasonably~ regulate driving motor vehicles paulsen."

Living Stone is, aine.

[tpaine]

No one here is disputing the power of a State to ~reasonably~ regulate driving motor vehicles paulsen.

Living Stone is, paine.

Wrong again paulsen. LS has supported the fact that we have inalienable rights to travel, rights that cannot be prohibited by ANY level of government.

Yes, -- reasonable regulations can be written, using due process of Constitutional law, but banning our fundamental right to move about is not possible.  

[MHGinTN]

I love it when someone expresses what you wrote and does it with such clarity and brevity! The dems don't realize whom they serve with their dehumanization, so they would likely be defending slavery if it were 1860. OH! I just remembered, it was the democrats of 1860 who were fighting to have it both ways, the new state deciding to be free or slave state! It was the Republican Party that was fighting to end slavery ... silly me. Looks like abortion has taken the place of defending the abomination of slavery. but then, what's one abomination over another when serving an evil, Christ hating master. Wonder what Uncle Screwtape would have to say about his disciples?