GA. Lawmaker: Driver's Liscenses? No more!

[Duckie]

Scarily, this man is actually correct from what I remember about early legal history (note I am not a lawyer). The supreme court consistently ruled in the horse-and-buggy era and the early car era that the constitution's freedom of travel guarantee also included free manner of travel without any examinations or licenses necessary, as the right to travel between areas, regardless of method, is a fundamental guarantee of the constitution. Revoking the right to use a vehicle without the state's consent is a violation of due process.

When the faster modern car and the aeroplane and whatnot were invented, the Supreme Court basically decided to pointedly ignore this precedent and never remark on it again, but it was very consistant up until the very early 20th century. If the Supreme Court were honest, without a fundamental new method of how they view the guarantees to various rights, they'd have to abolish the vehicle license.

(Though one hole does remain: the "fire in a theatre" excuse to restrict a fundamental right due to public safety. but the more logical solution? fix the constitution to not be stupid by adding this in as an exception. Or better yet, just rewrite the damn thing to make sense in a modern technological globalised world: of course people in the 18th century didn't expect planes and multi-ton carriages hurtling across cities faster than a man can run so there's some problems nowadays. They didn't even expect political parties.)

[Serafina]

Why would such a guarantee (free travel) be so absolute?
The "by all means possible" should obviously only be there insofar as significant restrictions on the means of travel automatically reduce the freedom of travel. However, given that drivers licenses are pretty easy to get, they do not effectively reduce the freedom of travel. Therefore, under a sensible application of the principle "freedom of travel", a drivers license should not be ruled an effective restriction of travel.

This principle also applies to other things - e.g. the german constitution guarantees freedom of occupation, but entry requirments into an occupation are not ruled unconstitutional as long as they do not present an unreasonable hurdle.

[Simon_Jester]

Scarily, this man is actually correct from what I remember about early legal history (note I am not a lawyer). The supreme court consistently ruled in the horse-and-buggy era and the early car era that the constitution's freedom of travel guarantee also included free manner of travel without any examinations or licenses necessary, as the right to travel between areas, regardless of method, is a fundamental guarantee of the constitution. Revoking the right to use a vehicle without the state's consent is a violation of due process.

As I see it, you have the right to travel; you do not have the right to travel by any means you please, or to operate heavy machinery regardless of hazards to bystanders. You never did: a man who got drunk and whipped his carriage-horses into a frenzy while driving them down the middle of an urban road in the 1700s could reasonably be charged with the equivalent of reckless endangerment. The risk that someone might be trampled by the horses or carriage under those conditions would be significant, albeit relatively low.

Even during the 1800s, I doubt the Court ever ruled that the "right to travel" included a "right to be a locomotive engineer." The locomotive engineer travels, yes, but he does so by operating a large, dangerous object that can easily kill many people if something goes wrong.

Careless operation of large, dangerous objects has never been a legal right. If you don't have a right to operate a locomotive as a subset of your right to travel, you don't necessarily have a right to operate an automobile, either.

That said, as long as there are ways to travel without operating a large, dangerous object, you should have a right to travel on them. This includes things like walking (not a threat to bystanders). It also includes riding in someone else's vehicle (you have a right to be a passenger, as far as I'm concerned, as long as you can find a driver/pilot who will take you on board). It does not include operating a vehicle you are incompetent to use.

(Though one hole does remain: the "fire in a theatre" excuse to restrict a fundamental right due to public safety. but the more logical solution? fix the constitution to not be stupid by adding this in as an exception. Or better yet, just rewrite the damn thing to make sense in a modern technological globalised world: of course people in the 18th century didn't expect planes and multi-ton carriages hurtling across cities faster than a man can run so there's some problems nowadays. They didn't even expect political parties.)

Sigh, yes. Unfortunately, the Founders also didn't foresee the entire industrial revolution, or the idea that qualitative social change might proceed fast enough that we'd have to radically reform the way we organize society every 50 to 75 years. As such, they wrote a constitution that cannot be easily reviewed or revised.

Of course, a constitution that can be easily reviewed and revised has its own problems; see the history of California propositions for reference.

[Duckie]

Well, I don't know about you, Simon, but I'm no lawyer. I'm only reporting what the court decided in many cases in the 19th century: that you can't require a license for vehicle operation without restricting the right to travel and the right to due process. Sure, of course those supreme court justices might think differently nowadays considering the differences in travel technology, if they weren't all dead of course, but the precedent as far as I know still stands or hasn't been explicitly refuted.

I completely agree that it's reasonable to require a license to operate a vehicle. But it's apparantly true according to them that in their interpretational frames of how the constitution gives out rights, it's not possible to do so. Reasonable and constitutional, of course, have only the vaguest resemblance to eachother at times.

[Simon_Jester]

If by "their interpretational frame" you mean the people arguing against driver's licenses... I would argue they're doing the interpretation wrong. Here's why.

Even when the Court ruled that you have a right to travel, it did not rule that you have a right to travel by any means you choose. Nor did they rule that that they have a right to endanger bystanders while exercising the right to travel.

Therefore, the precedents establishing a right to travel do not establish a right to drive motor vehicles on public highways, for two reasons.

The first reason is that driving motor vehicles on public highways is a specific means of travel. It is a means that may be prohibited even when other methods are allowed, including the means available in the 19th century, when the court first ruled on this. Banning you from operating a motor vehicle is not banning you from traveling. It isn't even banning you from using public roads to travel, since you can still be a passenger on those roads whenever you wish, and you can still walk along the roads the way someone would have done in the 18th or 19th century.

The second reason is that driving motor vehicles on public highways is an act that can endanger bystanders. A right to do X is not the same as a right to injure bystanders while doing X. Therefore, you do not have a right to drive in a way that endangers bystanders, and "driving while untrained" qualifies as such.

This is closely related to the 'common sense' argument you've already made, of course.

...

So basically, not only are these people advocating bad policy (lifting of licensing requirements for drivers), they're basing their bad policy on a bad interpretation of Supreme Court judgments. The Constitution doesn't require what they say it requires.

[Serafina]

Pretty much what i've said.
The requirement for a drivers license doesn't infringe on your right to travel:
-You can normally get the license, so that requirement is nowhere close to a ban in the first place
-Even without a drivers license, you still have many ways to travel. Even if you completely banned (or greatly restricted) travel by car, freedom of travel would still be given.

Of course, the requirement for a drivers license is still a very small infringment on someones right to travel. However, given a good reason, the government CAN infringe on someones fundamental right - as long as the reason is sufficiently strong in relation to the infringment. This is a general principle in law, tough the exact weighting can be tricky in some cases.
In this case, the infringment is pretty small (because most people can get one and those who can't can still travel freely) while the reason is quite strong (if everyone could drive a car it would be a great threat to public safety).

Treating rights as absolute just doesn't work. Otherwise, you could not prohibit people from "travelling" unto your propery, and you could not restrict a prisoners right to travel - and those are just a few examples.

[ShadowDragon8685]

It isn't even banning you from using public roads to travel, since you can still be a passenger on those roads whenever you wish, and you can still walk along the roads the way someone would have done in the 18th or 19th century.

(Underline mine, italics Simon_Jester's)

Actually, you can't. Every major highway I've ever seen has had, if you look carefully enough (which means you need to be going slow enough,) a sign on the entry ramp explicitly forbidding pedestrian, bicycle and horse traffic on them.

You cannot, in fact, just go and take a walk down the Interstate. Even if you're walking ten yards to the side of the road, you bet your ass you'll be picked up by the cops. In many places it's not even possible to do so, since they like to have the highways surrounded by trees and other terrain difficult to impossible to travel through for most modern people.

[SirNitram]

So the retort to being able to walk roads is.. You can't do it on major highways you know. There's plenty of road which is not highway, SD.

And if you can't drive and you need long-distance, there's trains, planes, and buses.

[Simon_Jester]

(Underline mine, italics Simon_Jester's)

Actually, you can't. Every major highway I've ever seen has had, if you look carefully enough (which means you need to be going slow enough,) a sign on the entry ramp explicitly forbidding pedestrian, bicycle and horse traffic on them.

You may recall that there are roads other than the large interstates that are not allowed for foot traffic. They call it a highway network for a reason, and there are plenty of 'surface street' highways that are legal for foot traffic.

It is entirely possible to (for example) walk across America; no one stops you from doing this. For that matter, people do do it. It will take you several months, but it always would have. The fact that it is difficult and inconvenient to walk hundreds of miles is not the fault of the US government; this has always been true. For practical purposes this is useless, since walking across America takes too long. But (again) this is not the fault of the US government.

If walking were the only legal means of traveling long distances that people without a driver's license have, that would be unfair and unreasonable, I accept that. But it isn't. You can still travel along the roads in someone else's vehicle, driven by someone competent to operate heavy machinery as you are not. This is perfectly legal. Your right to use the public roads is not being infringed.

[ShadowDragon8685]

]You may recall that there are roads other than the large interstates that are not allowed for foot traffic. They call it a highway network for a reason, and there are plenty of 'surface street' highways that are legal for foot traffic.

It is entirely possible to (for example) walk across America; no one stops you from doing this. For that matter, people do do it. It will take you several months, but it always would have. The fact that it is difficult and inconvenient to walk hundreds of miles is not the fault of the US government; this has always been true. For practical purposes this is useless, since walking across America takes too long. But (again) this is not the fault of the US government.

If walking were the only legal means of traveling long distances that people without a driver's license have, that would be unfair and unreasonable, I accept that. But it isn't. You can still travel along the roads in someone else's vehicle, driven by someone competent to operate heavy machinery as you are not. This is perfectly legal. Your right to use the public roads is not being infringed.

So the retort to being able to walk roads is.. You can't do it on major highways you know. There's plenty of road which is not highway, SD.

And if you can't drive and you need long-distance, there's trains, planes, and buses.

Outside of townships and cities, most road, highway or not, is not going to have sidewalk. Persons attempting to walk down a road which is meant for automobile traffic are putting themselves and (potentially) others in danger, and are almost certainly going to be frequently stopped by the authorities.

Not everyone has access to a friend with a vehicle - especially if you want to do something like, say, travel across a large state or even a region, let alone the whole country. A friend might give you a life to another town, but they're probably not going to drive you across ten states. Busses, trains and planes all require financial resources which a person may not have access to.


I'm certainly not saying that everyone - particularly those caught having operated under the influence of anything - should be allowed to drive, but in a country this size, especially given our paucity of public transport, an automobile is pretty much a necessity and regarded as a right that should be revoked only upon proof of incompetence to wield that right, not a privileged granted by a magnanimous government which feels free to strip it away.

And no, I'm not saying do away with driver's licenses or tests for driving capability. Initial-proof-of-competence is certainly something worth having when the right in question has the potential to kill people. But to say that having revoked someone's driver's license does not impinge upon their right to use the roads is like saying the laws of physics do not impinge upon the rights of the people to travel to the Moon.

[Phantasee]

Tell me something: when old folks tell me about how they had to walk 10 miles to school every morning through chest-high drifts of snow, uphill, both ways, do you think they had sidewalks?

The attitude that driving is a right is in my opinion a major source of the problems we see on the road today. My own sister, living in a house with two professional drivers, says "I'll get my license in April." Not, "I will take my test in April and hopefully pass so I may receive an operator's license." The assumption is that the road test and knowledge test are just red tape and some forms to be filled out, not a demonstration of the skills necessary to safely operate a motor vehicle on the roads you share with everyone else.

The state will not revoke a license at a whim. It follows the laws it sets. The laws and regulations define the circumstances under which a license can be suspended or revoked. If it sets a law that states that the state has the right to revoke a license on a whim, you may vote them out of office. That's how the system works.

Your analogy is as retarded as you appear to be. Simon clearly explained that the presence or absence of a driver's license in a particular individual's wallet does not affect their access to the roads. You can ride with someone else, several someones if you take a bus. Do you think just anyone should be allowed to drive a bus? Or do you agree that the right to drive a bus is independent of the right to travel along a road? Why is driving a car any different? The standards are lower for a light vehicle, anyway. If you can't reach that minimum level, why do you have a right to operate machinery on a public road?

[Simon_Jester]

Outside of townships and cities, most road, highway or not, is not going to have sidewalk. Persons attempting to walk down a road which is meant for automobile traffic are putting themselves and (potentially) others in danger, and are almost certainly going to be frequently stopped by the authorities.

With reason: if you're desperate enough to walk long distances, it's probably because of something the authorities might be interested in. Such as "my car stalled out five miles down the highway and I'm trying to get to a gas station." You can most certainly walk along the shoulder of the road. Theoretically you might be in danger for doing so; that doesn't mean you can't do it.

Of course, it will take longer and probably cost more money in the long run than travelling in a motor vehicle of some kind. Traveling in a car is better than walking. This does not make driving a right.

Not everyone has access to a friend with a vehicle - especially if you want to do something like, say, travel across a large state or even a region, let alone the whole country. A friend might give you a life to another town, but they're probably not going to drive you across ten states. Busses, trains and planes all require financial resources which a person may not have access to.

So do automobiles. If you can't afford a bus ticket, you probably can't afford gas money to cross the country in a car.

An automobile is not a necessity in this country. Millions of people don't own automobiles. It is an extremely valuable convenience, but you don't have a right to an automobile any more than you have a right to electricity. Normally, people have electricity... but normally, people pay their dues to keep having electricity. If you want electricity but don't want to pay for it, you're kind of screwed. And this is not unreasonable: electricity has costs.

Likewise, if you want to drive but don't want to 'pay' for it by learning to operate heavy machinery without killing people, you're kind of screwed. And this is not unreasonable: dumbasses with a sense of entitlement can get people killed when they operate heavy machinery, because the road will not cut them any slack for being dumbasses with a sense of entitlement.

And no, I'm not saying do away with driver's licenses or tests for driving capability. Initial-proof-of-competence is certainly something worth having when the right in question has the potential to kill people. But to say that having revoked someone's driver's license does not impinge upon their right to use the roads is like saying the laws of physics do not impinge upon the rights of the people to travel to the Moon.

You're missing a crucial point here: while a right logically includes the right to exercise the right, it does not logically include the right to exercise the right with perfect freedom by any means one chooses.

You have a right to travel along the roads. The best way to travel along the roads is by driving a piece of heavy machinery with yourself at the helm. Some people are not competent to do that, and are not allowed to operate motor vehicles on the public roads. This may limit their ability to use the public roads whenever they wish... but it does not deprive them of their right to use those roads. No one will punish them for trying to use the roads, so long as they don't try to operate heavy machinery. They still have access to plenty of methods of traveling along the roads. They can use these methods; they will not be stopped. For people with even a little bit of motivation, drive, and competence, it is very much possible to get from place to place without a car.

Granted their ability to travel is somewhat limited by lack of a car. But then, their ability to speak is limited by the lack of a private radio station; this does not mean everyone is entitled to have one.

[Serafina]

Outside of townships and cities, most road, highway or not, is not going to have sidewalk. Persons attempting to walk down a road which is meant for automobile traffic are putting themselves and (potentially) others in danger, and are almost certainly going to be frequently stopped by the authorities.

Did you EVER travel a long distance on foot? You don't NEED sidewalks to do so. A cleared, possibly paved path is nice to have, but even without one it is perfectly possible to travel long distances on foot (unless you get into real wilderness).

Not everyone has access to a friend with a vehicle - especially if you want to do something like, say, travel across a large state or even a region, let alone the whole country. A friend might give you a life to another town, but they're probably not going to drive you across ten states. Busses, trains and planes all require financial resources which a person may not have access to.

A car also requires financial resources, you idiot. Even if you get the car for free and don't have to pay for it's insurance, it still needs fuel.
Travelling by bus or train is neither more expensive than doing so by car (in most cases, often even cheaper) nor significantly slower.

I'm certainly not saying that everyone - particularly those caught having operated under the influence of anything - should be allowed to drive, but in a country this size, especially given our paucity of public transport, an automobile is pretty much a necessity and regarded as a right that should be revoked only upon proof of incompetence to wield that right, not a privileged granted by a magnanimous government which feels free to strip it away.

If you want to argue that, how about providing decent public transportation?

[General Zod]

Did you EVER travel a long distance on foot? You don't NEED sidewalks to do so. A cleared, possibly paved path is nice to have, but even without one it is perfectly possible to travel long distances on foot (unless you get into real wilderness).

That's only really practical during months with nice weather. Walking more than a mile in the negatives isn't really advisable, and considering how the rate of accidents goes up in icy weather it's even more dangerous.

[Phantasee]

Are you suggesting that Shadow Dragon isn't a rugged enough individual to handle a winter trek?

[ShadowDragon8685]

Are you suggesting that Shadow Dragon isn't a rugged enough individual to handle a winter trek?

Of course I'm not a rugged enough individual to handle a winter trek! I doubt there's more than ten thousand individuals rugged enough to handle that south of the state of Alaska.

[Simon_Jester]

Are you suggesting that Shadow Dragon isn't a rugged enough individual to handle a winter trek?

Of course I'm not a rugged enough individual to handle a winter trek! I doubt there's more than ten thousand individuals rugged enough to handle that south of the state of Alaska.

OK, now that is kind of funny.

(Hint: you're underestimating by two or three orders of magnitude, possibly four depending on your definition of "winter trek.")

To be fair, even rugged individuals normally prefer to avoid traveling on foot in the wintertime if they can help it; there are reasons pre-modern armies would retreat to winter quarters.

It's not unreasonable to point out that the American road network and social system are designed on the assumption that people have access to motor vehicles. We normally expect that people can travel five or ten miles easily, without tiring themselves out and without taking hours to get there, during all but the worst of inclement weather.

But that's beside the point. Even though participation in modern life involves is that it is very, very much possible to live your life without operating a motor vehicle of your own. Millions of people do it. They are sometimes inconvenienced by the limits that imposes on their ability to travel, but they are not barred from travel. Not in the sense that someone's freedom of travel would be infringed if they were locked in a dungeon or if they had to present an internal passport to go more than a few miles from their home.

Therefore, while being able to travel is a right, and use of the public roads as an aid to travel is a right, neither of these rights have anything to do with the question of motor vehicle licensing.

[salm]

Oh, please, as a teenager i regurarily walked home 7 km in the winter. That was out in the sticks and i was drunk. It takes about an hour and you don´t have to be particularily rugged.

[Broomstick]

Are you suggesting that Shadow Dragon isn't a rugged enough individual to handle a winter trek?

Of course I'm not a rugged enough individual to handle a winter trek! I doubt there's more than ten thousand individuals rugged enough to handle that south of the state of Alaska.

Yo! Right here!

I even go out for a walk in the winter time just for the fresh air, sunshine, and exercise.

Then again, I own cross country skis, wool socks, and proper winter attire. That, and I'm in pretty good shape for an American of any age, much less a lady pushing middle age. Seriously, the young'uns are getting weak. And...um... GET OFF MY LAWN!

I suspect at least part of Shadow's problem is he doesn't know how to properly equip himself for a winter trek.

[Aaron]

Snowshoe technology, look into it.

Ten thousand South of Alaska that can handle it my fucking ass, the majority of my country handles it just fine.