Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So much fail on your part. Richard James McDonald is a known kook who follows known kook theories posed by Sovereign Citizens and Freeman on the Land types. Known kooks, who commit countless amounts of criminal acts, including Tax Evasion, and encourages driving without licenses
Much to his dismay, the courts have already ruled that Driving is not a right. the RIGHT to travel is of course a right, and no one can keep you in a place against your will. However, the MODE of Transportation is still not a right.
So don't confuse the RIGHT to TRAVEL with the Driving, as driving is not a right. Never has and never will.
An Op/eD piece. Please, we can fight editorials with editorials any day of the week. What matters are what the courts have decided.
Robertson v. Washington State Department of Public Works is a case t hat illustrates the RIGHT to travel, but driving, where you use public roads is NOT a right.
The plaintiff's argument that the right to operate a motor vehicle is fundamental because of its relation to the fundamental right of interstate travel is utterly frivolous. The plaintiff is not being prevented from traveling interstate by public transportation, by common carrier, or in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it. What is at issue here is not his right to travel interstate, but his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways, and we have no hesitation in holding that this is not a fundamental right.
...
Miller does not have a fundamental “right to drive.” In Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105, 112-16, 97 S.Ct. 1723, 52 L.Ed.2d 172 (1977), the Supreme Court held that a state could summarily suspend or revoke the license of a motorist who had been repeatedly convicted of traffic offenses with due process satisfied by a full administrative hearing available only after the suspension or revocation had taken place. The Court conspicuously did not afford the possession of a driver's license the weight of a fundamental right.
...
In sum, Miller does not have a fundamental right to drive a motor vehicle, and the DMV did not unconstitutionally impede his right to interstate travel by denying him a driver's license.
So again, court decisions matter. Not a blogger. not kooks on the internet.
Quote:
Driving is a right. It is necessary in the pursuit of happiness.
Many people in Chicago and New York would disagree with you. My cousin lived in NY all her life. She never got a drivers license, since she never needed to drive anywhere. Everywhere is accessible by some form of public transportation service, and she has been happy to live without one. Only when did she move from New York, that at the AGE of 30 did she go for her Drivers license for the first time.
Quote:
It is necessary in many parts of the country to function in today's society.
Still not a right.
Quote:
Your "right" to drive can be taken away, but only under due process. We do have laws that further restrict that "right" (age, standard driving test, etc), but the act of driving is a right granted to all individuals who meet those initial criteria.
You are not describing a right. YOU are describing a privilege.
Why do you care about everyone else?...worry about yourself.
again. its the law
don't like it. don't drive. Simple really
Dont like, then work to get it changed
Until then, you put on the seat belt whether you like it or not.
Really, I don't care about your reasons why you think its unjust or not. the law is the law. If you don't like it again, YOU have the right ot MOVE to somewhere that there are no seat belt laws.
and if I had it my way, EVERYONE in an enclosed vehicle would be forced to wear a seat belt, even those in the back seat, even on school buses. and there would be no exceptions for classic cars (those cars made before Seat belts were made mandatory to the car manufacturers)
seriously what part of Driving is a privlege do you knuckleheads do not get?
You want to drive, then obey the fracking laws. If the law says you must wear a seatbelt, then too bad, YOU wear that damn seatbelt.
You can always choose to take the bus, walk, bike, taxi or bum a ride with a friend (in the backseat).
Otherwise, you obey the laws. That's why you were given a license.
END THREAD.
Really, it did not need to go to 8 pages of BS.
Of course, the poll that opened the threat is not asking if we must wear our seat belts, but if we think seat belt use SHOULD be mandated. It's an opinion poll. Most of us understand that the law is in effect in most of the US, and most of us obey the law or accept the consequences of the law. Most of us even understand that using our seat belts can reduce the severity of injury and lessen the chance of death in case of an accident. But still, many of us believe that such use ought to be of our own choosing, and that the government ought not to spend its' time, energy, & money worrying about whether we wear our seat belts.
But still, many of us believe that such use ought to be of our own choosing, and that the government ought not to spend its' time, energy, & money worrying about whether we wear our seat belts.
and some of us do think that the government needs to step in and mandate such usage. As they mandate the use of alcohol, cigarettes and other social activities that carry high risk.
and some of us do think that the government needs to step in and mandate such usage. As they mandate the use of alcohol, cigarettes and other social activities that carry high risk.
The government does not mandate alcohol or cigarette use.
Nor does the government prohibit their use by adults.
and some of us do think that the government needs to step in and mandate such usage. As they mandate the use of alcohol, cigarettes and other social activities that carry high risk.
Why do you feel that government should mandate the use of seat belts by adults? What harm does a person cause to someone other than themselves by not wearing a seat belt?
Age requirement in order to purchase/possess/consume each product is mandated by the government.
actually, the government DOES and can prohibit use by adults, if said adult(s) are prone abusers.
The age requirement being why I said that the government does not prohibit adults from drinking or smoking. If any individual is prohibited from drinking, that's as a punishment for a specific act, most likely (in every case I have ever heard of) an act that caused harm to someone other than the user, and not a general prohibition.
You haven't answered the more important question; WHY do you feel the government should be able to mandate seat belt use?
The age requirement being why I said that the government does not prohibit adults from drinking or smoking. If any individual is prohibited from drinking, that's as a punishment for a specific act, most likely (in every case I have ever heard of) an act that caused harm to someone other than the user, and not a general prohibition.
You haven't answered the more important question; WHY do you feel the government should be able to mandate seat belt use?
They get quiet when they can't shake a question.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
