On Sep 27, 6:47 am, proffsl wrote:
> Brian K wrote:
> > proffsl wrote
>
> > > Gosh Dave, you've changed! Oh! Wait, you're not Dave. You're that
> > > guy who thinks it's cute to "fix my posts".
>
> > > No, the Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public
> > > highways these days is "Driving the Automobile".
>
> > > Neither Licensing nor Insurance is a form of Locomotion.
>
> > > We have the Right to Drive the Automobile for personal travel on our
> > > public highways.
>
> > > Driver Licensing serves no purpose to highway safety that laws
> > > against endangerment didn't already serve.
>
> > > Read about it at:http://proffsl.110mb.com/driver_licensing.php
>
> > Driving an automobile is not a right it is a privilege. There is no
> > Constitutional law that guarantees the right to drive.
>
> Actually, the courts have recognized that there is indeed a Right to
> Drive:
>
> "The Idaho Supreme Court, however, has held that the right to operate
> a motor vehicle on public highways is a matter of constitutional
> dimension. In Adams v. City of Pocatello , 91 Idaho 99, 101, 416 P.2d
> 46, 48 (1966), the Court declared that the right to drive "is a right
> or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of
> the federal and state constitutions." Consequently, the courts of this
> state must regard the right to drive a motor vehicle on public
> highways as constitutionally protected." - STATE OF IDAHO v. MARK
> WILDER -http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/idahostatecases/app/1033/wilder.pdf
As I showed you above, this very case YOU cite UPHOLDS licensing and
REJECTS all of the arguments you made.
|