So you are agreeing with me then?Driving might have been a...

  1. 23,868 Posts.
    lightbulb Created with Sketch. 33
    So you are agreeing with me then?
    Driving might have been a natural right but natural rights have been usurped by legislative tyranny therefore it is NOW a 'privilege' bestowed upon us lowly folk by our lord and masters on high?
    Make up your mind?


    Anyway, to counter your opinion on the matter, here is another. American based, but whatever.

    "

    Use of the public highways to travel is a long standing right protected by the USA Constitution (Spokane Vs. Port, Wn. App P.2d 945). “It is well settled that the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to travel, although it is not always clear which constitutional provision affords the protection. <snip> Freedom of movement is at the heart of our scheme of values, for it may be as keen an interest of the individual as the choice of what he reads, says, eats or wears.” But does that mean that traveling via an automobile is a right?

    “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .” Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009.

    “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.” Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963).

    Here the court very clearly states the right to drive is a Constitutionaly protected common right. Though the Spokane vs Port court claims said right may be infringed on via police powers to require demonstration of competency, making the “right a qualified right, i.e. a privilege”. Except it is long standing and well understood that the police powers may not convert a right into a privilege - a brief Words and Phrases search will produce multiple cases to this effect. Thus the court was kind enough to establish validity of use of the highways via automobile as a right to drive but they exceed their authority by attempting to convert said right into a mere privilege.

    “If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262.

    “The state cannot and does not have the power to license, nor tax, a Right guaranteed to the people,” and “No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

    Yet with the right to drive, the right to bear arms, and taxation cases we see the courts blatantly convert rights to privileges.


    Now I realise we are not the U.S. and as a penal colony we don't have a bill of rights, but the moral principle is the same. If something is a natural right in one place then it is a natural right in ALL places and only the force of tyranny tramples those rights into 'privileges' that can be taken or given at will by ze state. Just like Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany and Marxist China. At least we know what side you are cheering for.

 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.