I say that as someone who practiced 33 years in the US Supreme Court. This is a lot of effort for no legitimate purpose.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article, "The Non-Constitutional Crisis from Illinois"
The Declaration, the Constitution, parts of the Federalist, and America's Owner's Manual, here.
You think the founding fathers would have thought that the right to travel the highways was a privilege and not a right? So since it is a privilege, should they also be able to stop and search and fingerprint you for no reason?
So if we break no laws, it’s OK for us to be abused by police?
Oh come on, you know we haven't a system of positive rights. The Constitution guarantees no one any rights with regard automobiles. Or airplanes. Or radio.
The Constitution guarantees very few rights, and even those it does guarantee are trampled.
I always thought the purpose of the Constitution was to limit the powers of the federal government, not to limit the rights of the citizens. Silly me
Jack
Funny, I thought the Constitution outlined what the GOVERNMENT could not do.
BTW if revoking your driving eliminates your pursuit of happiness the court is in Direct violation of the Constitution.
Living in government subsidized housing is a privilege not a right. Does that mean that a tenant living in a government project gives up is constitutional rights? Do the police have the right to search the gov. subsidized housing unit without a warrant?
One does not forfeit one’s consitutional rights by driving a car.
Driving a car is practically necessary to make a living and function in this country (especially rurally).
While such an important “PRIVILEGE” is at stake, my constitutional rights should be fiercely protetected by a decent judicial system.
Your argument makes no sense to me.
And if all the State could do for having a beer and driving a car is give you a ticket and restrict you from driving, I'd agree with you.
But they can take away your freedom, get you fired and remove your "right" to own a firearm. For having a beer.
Sorry. Just can't agree.
I normally agree with you, CB - but with all due respect, I don't see an exemption to the 4th and 5th Amendments when someone is driving a car.
While I totally agree with you that driving is not a right, there still remains the right against self-incrimination, and a myriad of other rights that are routinely tossed by the wayside in DUI cases.
What about the guy that is sleeping it off in the backseat of the car, but because he has his keys in his pockets is busted for DUI --- in his own driveway? The cops never saw him driving, but that doesn't matter, he's in the vehicle and has the keys and is intoxicated, but he is also on private property.
Sorry, my learned friend, but DUI laws are abused and the fanatics at MADD see to it that it happens.
As to the situation mentioned, it is a true story. The man involved and his wife had a fight and instead of keeping it going he just went out to the car --- she called the cops on him and she is the one that told me the story.
Besides, we are talking about operating motor vehicles on public roads. If the guy were just spinning wheels up and down his own driveway he’d soon discover the law was far different in those cases ~ although there are still limitations on operating motor vehicles, or even stationary engines, while drunk on private property.
Was the ability to ride one's horse or horse drawn buggy into town a Privilege or a Right?
If I wish to drive my car around my 100 acres, is that a privilege or a right?
Just because YOUR government now owns and maintains the roads does not mean that my ability to drive a car on those same roads is now a privilege.
Yea, I know you are an attorney and can easily out debate my argument but the fact remains that YOUR government has now turned my once "Right" into a privilege.
You know damn well that that does not make it right.........
Those roads are the ones I paid to build and maintain. Similarly the police are hired by me for law enforcement not to conduct roadblocks for revenue purposes or give or take away permission to drive based on their own prejudices.
Barbara Streisand!!!! Our Constitution was not drafted to enumerate our rights and limit them. The Constitution was drafted to limit the power of government.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
If a free man is not endowed with the right to travel and earn a living, that whole right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness idea, then I can think of no more onerous of a philosophy as to say that free movement is a privilege and not a god given right. And I don't want to hear any drivel about how there weren't any cars back in the day of the drafting. They had horses. Was the right to ride a horse down a common thoroughfare a right or a privilege??? Did George Washington need a DMV license to ride his horse???
You sir are the Apex of Irony spouting such balderdash on a site named FREE REPUBLIC!!!!!
“Driving a car is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT. “
So you’re saying that if I own some land and I own a car, I do not have a right to drive the car I own on the land I own?
I read the article, and got the impresssion that pressure groups such as MADD were encouraging government agencies to enact tighter controls/enforcement over the activities of their interest. Licensure, in itself wasn't the theme. There's an awful lot of stuff that the Constitution doesn't guarantee. To give any kind of interest group too much influence over the granting of permission to engage in any of these 'non-guaranteed' activities may tend to restrict the enjoyment of them, wouldnt you agree? Who elected MADD anyway, or does it matter? Most of the details of our lives are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, should the police then be allowed Carte Blanche in arranging their control?
There are those who want to use the public roads, while ignoring the public's laws.
Congressman Billybob: "Driving a car is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT. The Constitution guarantees NO ONE the right to get behind the wheel."
So the police have the right to detain and jail you at any time just for suspicion of driving under the influence?????
Sounds like a totalitarian police state to me.
As some of the other commenters pointed out, they can do this if you're not even driving. Just think that you might.
Sure, there are many accidents caused on the highway by truly impaired drunken drivers. But I don't know what that has to do with all the people getting screwed for being pulled over at a checkpoint after a few drinks.
Where did you get that idea?
Driving on American Roads is a Constitutional Right, not a State-Granted 'Privelege'