[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: driver's ed. is a joke
In article pfr@abel.cc.sunysb.edu, gene@insti.physics.sunysb.edu (Eugene Tyurin) writes:
>>>>>> Robert King <king@khis.com> writes:
>
> > On which road? If I own a road, (racetrack, whatever,) I have a
> > perfect right to demand anyone using it to show me proof of competence
> > before I let them on it. The Government has that same right. Driving
> > on public roads is a previlidge extended to us by our government.
>
>My follow-up is a US-centered one, but bear with it. :)
>
>Quoting the "Frogfarm FAQ" (available at this URL:
>gopher://gopher.etext.org/11/Legal/FrogFarm/ ):
>
>"Operation of a motor vehicle upon public streets and highways is not a
>mere privilege but is a right or liberty protected by the guarantees of
>Federal and State constitutions." Adams v. City of Pocatello 416 P2d 46
Granted, but one may think of it as a right that is EXTENDED to an
individual by the government rather than an inherent right that individual
posesses simply by existing. A human being has a right to a fair trial is
accused of a crime, and he has a right to use office equipment assigned to
him to his employer, but the two rights are very different. One right
cannot be revoked, the other can.
I used "priviledge" in my previous post because most people cannot
discern the difference between various kinds of rights. Most see a
right as somthing inviolate. Some are and some are not.
>"The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom
>from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious
>conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL
>CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts." People
>v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971)
This case did not deal with driving as a right per se. Rather it
dealt with a special case of unreasonable search and seizure, which
is a much broader civil right.
>"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to
>transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or
>automobile is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited
>at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life,
>liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Slusher v. Safety Coach Transit
>Co., 229 Ky 731, 17 SW2d 1012, and affirmed by the Supreme Court in
>Thompson v. Smith 154 S.E. 579.
I`d like to see the ENTIRE transcript of the Supreme Court's position
on this and a DATE, since a literal interpretation of what you posted
would make it impossible to prohibit ANYONE from friving, and it would
make driver's licenses, automobile registration tags, and vehicle
registration unnecessary. I suspect the above has been taken out of
context, or is further refined or restricted in some way (or perhaps even
reversed at a later date.)
I suspect this is a VERY early ruling by the Supreme court, perhaps
as early as the turn of the century (predating legislation requiring
driver's licenses, automobile registration and safety inspections.)
>"The license charge imposed by the motor vehicle act is an excise
>or privilege tax, established for the purpose of revenue in order
>to provide a fund for roads while under the dominion of the state
>authorities, it is not a tax imposed as a rental charge or a toll charge
>for the use of the highways owned and controlled by the state." - PG&E
>v. State Treasurer, 168 Cal 420.
This simply states that the license charge is a flat fee, not governed
or determined by usage of the roadway. (Although in Texas, this tax is
determined by usage - usually by vehicle weight.)
My position stands.
---
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Robert A. King | |
| Systems Software Engineer | |
| Kodak Health Imaging Systems | "I drank WHAT?!?" -- Socrates |
| | |
| king@khan.khis.com | |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The opinions expressed here arn't even mine, much less my employer's! |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
References: