Posted on 10/11/2010 12:46:11 PM PDT by djf
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT
To amend Title 40 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to motor vehicles and traffic, so as to repeal Chapter 5, relating to drivers' licenses; provide for a short title; to report the findings of the General Assembly regarding the constitutionality of certain laws relating to drivers' licenses; to provide for an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA:
SECTION 1. This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Right to Travel Act."
SECTION 2. The General Assembly finds that: (1) Free people have a common law and constitutional right to travel on the roads and highways that are provided by their government for that purpose. Licensing of drivers cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of an inalienable right; (2) In England in 1215, the right to travel was enshrined in Article 42 of Magna Carta: It shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water, saving his allegiance to us, unless it be in time of war, for some short space, for the common good of the kingdom: excepting prisoners and outlaws, according to the laws of the land, and of the people of the nation at war against us, and Merchants who shall be treated as it is said above. (3) Where rights secured by the Constitution of the United States and the State of Georgia are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate these rights. The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon an individual because of this exercise of constitutional rights; (4) American citizens have the inalienable right to use the roads and highways unrestricted in any manner so long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. The government, by requiring the people to obtain drivers' licenses, is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law and constitutional right to travel; (5) In Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Potter Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that the right to travel "is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association...it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." The Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; and we hold that the right to travel is so fundamental that the Framers thought it was unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights; (6) The right to travel upon the public highways is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will but the common right which every citizen has under his or her right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his or her inclination along the public highways or in public places while conducting himself or herself in an orderly and decent manner; and (7) Thus, the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the citizens' right to travel upon the public roads by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive the right and convert that right into a privilege.
SECTION 3. Title 40 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to motor vehicles and traffic, is amended by repealing Chapter 5, relating to drivers' licenses, and designating said chapter as reserved.
SECTION 4. This Act shall become effective upon its approval by the Governor or upon its becoming law without such approval.
SECTION 5. All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed.
I did read. The word "immigration" is not seen once in the entire legislation. How does that prove he's against illegals?
Walking or biking in the Atlanta region is dangerous. Going most anywhere without a car is unsafe, what with 4-lane roads everywhere and 80MPH speeds common (some of you think I’m joking - I’m not).
I’m guessing that one didn’t go anywhere either.
Do I believe the Constitution is a living document? NO. However I do believe that laws are written evolving past this document alone and that people need common sense when dealing with modern conveyances like assault weapons.
See how silly and statist that sounds? No one is saying totally unrestricted, just like few suggest that the mentally disabled and children should own firearms. But with law abiding citizens, the usurpation of our rights continue.
I posted that link because it proved he was a stalwart conservative. Here’s another proposed legislation that deals strictly with immigration, which I am certain you can now ascertain his position:
http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/fulltext/hr1410.htm
Bravo! He’s one of the good guys :)
Precisely. To allow the government to change a once-considered “right” into a “privilege,” we systematically permit the government to revoke said privilege whenever it deems necessary.
That may be OK to some statists, but not myself. I understand this legislation will go nowhere. But I support his cause.
You got it!!!Right on the mark.
Could this be a ploy so that illegals, who ostensibly cannot get drivers licenses in Georgia, can “end-run” the system?
see #25
I live in GA, working near Atlanta.
Short response: if you don’t drive, you can’t function here.
Walking or biking any meaningful distance and frequency will get you run over. Really.
Buses are too far and infrequent. Trains are worse. Both require you pay; no money, no travel (think “poll tax” for your argument).
Existing driver licensing is too lax to warrant existence of such regulation.
There is no compelling reason to treat driving as a privilege. To the contrary, in modern society it is as much a right as buying food (”you could grow your own...” arguments are just as inane).
This is outstanding, but even if enacted it will not have any effect on 0bamao without some teeth - such as withholding taxes equal to the amount necessary to secure our borders and remove all illegal aliens.
Actually licensing does not restrict your right to drive. It restricts where you may drive. You do not need license to drive on private property. You need a license to drive on government owned roads. The government is basically regulating the use of government resources. It is hard to see a constitutional issue in that.
Perhaps.
Nonetheless, it is the right thing to do.
That rights may be abused does not warrant circumventing them.
They had horses, which routinely killed people, especially if they were “on the loose” or just some jerk going too fast. What is the line that needs to be crossed to determine if a license is required? And who determines that line? Just curious...
In any case, this would be a state-level decision, in my opinion.
Another question... if Georgia didn’t issue drivers licenses, could Georgians drive out of state?
whoever determines how much the license fee is
Would you consent to a license to buy food? You can always grow your own.
Would you consent to a license to buy guns? You can always make your own.
Would you consent to a license to speech? You can always talk at home.
The government doesn't 'own' the roads, the public does.
Not to mention the legal definition of license IS governmental permission.
“and I wonder why”
My guess is to negate the voter ID law presently in place.
About two days after a guy pointed out they could charge for the issuance of a license.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.