Ga. Lawmaker Proposes Doing Away With Driver's Licenses
http://www.cbsatlanta.com/news/26675368/detail.html
I think this guy is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out there!!!!
There are millions of people who SHOULD NOT be behind a wheel of a motorized vehicle. So, of course drivers should be licensed.
He is one scary individual!!
Actually Jo,
Drivers licenses or the lack there of do not stop drivers from driving. He is RIGHT in that it is unconstitutional to prohibit on the roads and highways that are provided by their government for that purpose. It is the Right of Locomotion. Drivers licenses were not required of individuals until 1910 when drivers licenses were required only of chauffers or Commercial operators. In 1913 New Jersey required everyone in NJ to have one.
It didn't happen til after ww2 when the rest of the country decided to jump in on this cash cow.
I agree --- gov't intervention is the pits, but I'm sorry Steve, I still believe that drivers having to acquire a license, makes me feel safer when I am traveling. I see people every day that absolutely should NOT be allowed to drive.
I'm old, so, that is just my opinion. :-)) but I'm entitled to it, so by golly I exercise it.
Peace....my friend!
Quote from: Jo McDonald on February 01, 2011, 10:20:45 AM
I agree --- gov't intervention is the pits, but I'm sorry Steve, I still believe that drivers having to acquire a license, makes me feel safer when I am traveling. I see people every day that absolutely should NOT be allowed to drive.
ROTFL yeah I too exercise my opinion! :D One point you mentioned..... You said you see people every day hat should not be Allowed to drive yet they have a license you know!
QuoteI'm old, so, that is just my opinion. :-)) but I'm entitled to it, so by golly I exercise it.
Peace....my friend!
Traveling may be a Right, but driving is not. Its real simple, you want to drive you get a liscense. Now that may not stop all irresponsible behavior, but it does stop a majority. I think regular vision, hearing, and even reflex testing should be done with more enforcement. I think that this is one area that gov't rules should be applied.
Quote from: Varmit on February 01, 2011, 11:03:45 AM
Traveling may be a Right, but driving is not. Its real simple, you want to drive you get a liscense. Now that may not stop all irresponsible behavior, but it does stop a majority. I think regular vision, hearing, and even reflex testing should be done with more enforcement. I think that this is one area that gov't rules should be applied.
THats not true varmit. To travel the roads today, you cannot just simply walk down them. Try that on a interstate and you get a ticket or in jail. The constitution is clear, that it is a right. Barring any form of land transportation is not allowed. it doesn't matter if your walking or riding a horse or driving.
"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 22.
("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement: stop lights, signs, etc.)
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 179.
It could not be stated more conclusively that citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restrictions (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293.
"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S., F.2d 486, 489.
In reading the articles here, in the 'Honkies' thread and others, and reading the replies, there seems to be a theme appearing. That theme would be that the Constitution must get smaller as government gets bigger in our desire for it (the govt) to somehow 'protect' or us from something that 'might' be harmful (bad drivers, sugary/salty food, gasoline) or offensive (groups with opposing or even radical views, Christians, Jews). Talk about being judgmental! In these cases, who's to judge what is offensive or too dangerous? The government (read bureaucrats)? Friends, that will likely lead to totalitarianism.
How can some of you be so blind? Did you not grow out of mommy's and daddy's arms to become independent adult thinkers? Responsible for yourself, and not relying on someone else to take care of you. Why, now, do you pick and choose areas where you seem to want to give over your liberty & be willing to give away my liberty in the hope that some government policy, law or regulation will somehow protect you & replace your need to fend for yourself?
I suggest that the words of a man who helped give us the Republic that served to make America the prosperous & dominant world leader it became say it best.....
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
Benjamin Franklin, "Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor", November 11, 1755
This isn't just about some drunk nitwit with or without a driver's license or a bunch of wing nuts having a private meeting at a privately owned hotel. This is about our belief that we should be independently free from government control to enjoy to our life, liberty and to pursue happiness! This is about our strength of personal character... are nitwits and wing nuts able to have the same liberties as the rest of us expect, or not? I say, that as long as the driver of a car or an idiot with an ideology doesn't impinge others liberties, harm innocent kids, damage/steal property of others, or mess with others lives then leave him to his own demise.
In the end, the Constitution doesn't really get smaller, we just get farther from it. And when we are far enough from it there will be a replacement. Not likely one you'll enjoy living under. Remember frogs: Inch by inch. Great nations are not destroyed by external forces. They are destroyed from within by internal structures that rot from poor care & foundations weakened by a lack of maintenance.
You hear alot about how this is unconstitutional or that is unconstitutional,l yet seldom does the constitution mention anything about the law in question. For example, can anyone here list the admendment that covers driving??
Another thing, how is it that some say "we want limited or no governmental interference in our lives" then go on to say that a law was deemed unconstitutional by a governmental body?
And what is with the unwritten "either/or" clauses in almost every argument presented here? Either we are going to be governed or we're not. I mean, if we are going to say that drivers licenses are unconstitutional because the govenment cannot interfere with a persons "right" to drive then ALL traffic laws need to be abolished because they interfere don't they?
And just because a person is willing to say that, yes we do need rules, laws, and regulations, in certain areas doesn't mean they are giving away their liberty. It simply means, that as a civilized society they recognize the fact that there needs to be a certin set of rules that folks live by.
As for quoting Ben Franklin, I find it curious that a man that would talk about liberty and freedom would own slaves.
Quote from: Varmit on February 01, 2011, 06:45:45 PM
You hear alot about how this is unconstitutional or that is unconstitutional,l yet seldom does the constitution mention anything about the law in question. For example, can anyone here list the admendment that covers driving??
5th amendment, 14th amendment under the equal protection clause,
"The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel along the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some vehicle." House v. Cramer, 1 12 N. W. 3; 134 Iowa 374 (1907).
Theres a host of court decisions supporting this, as well. ITs even debatable in the licensing of commercial drivers.
Most imporantly its exactly the same thing as licensing firearms. No difference.
QuoteAnother thing, how is it that some say "we want limited or no governmental interference in our lives" then go on to say that a law was deemed unconstitutional by a governmental body?
And what is with the unwritten "either/or" clauses in almost every argument presented here? Either we are going to be governed or we're not. I mean, if we are going to say that drivers licenses are unconstitutional because the govenment cannot interfere with a persons "right" to drive then ALL traffic laws need to be abolished because they interfere don't they?
pretty much it is so. THeonly laws needed are the ones to handle traffic in orderly mannor. Traffic lights ect....
QuoteAnd just because a person is willing to say that, yes we do need rules, laws, and regulations, in certain areas doesn't mean they are giving away their liberty. It simply means, that as a civilized society they recognize the fact that there needs to be a certin set of rules that folks live by.
You do not have to give up inalienable rights to have rules of conduct. :)
QuoteAs for quoting Ben Franklin, I find it curious that a man that would talk about liberty and freedom would own slaves.
WEll i'll take Ben Franklin a slave owner over what we have today. They had more integrity in their little pinky than the leaders of today do.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Nope, No mention of driving privledges.
14th Amendment
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article
Again, no mention of driving or driving privledges.
I find it funny that as a Americans we holler and praise about the constitution and how it limits gov't. Yet we rely on a panel of 9 people that are appointed by the government, to tell us what the constitutional limits of the government are. Espcially when you consider that their decisions can be flipped-flopped depending on who sits on the panel. Its all a scam.
I'm not going to argue with you on it Varmit, the constitution is quite clear. The Government cannot enact licensing on a inalienable right of life liberty and pursuit of happiness. Right to locomotion includes foot, horse, buggy bicycle, and car. It doesn't matter what mode of transportation you choose to pursue happiness or exercise your right to liberty.
The wording of Right of Locomotion was left as it is because they knew new things would be created to travel with and they did not wish to relegate it to one specific mode.
I can tell ya one thing, if i choose not to have a license, no one will make me stop travelling in anything i choose to do so.
Well, I'll tell you what, if you're going to post about specific admendments at least read them first.
Quote from: Varmit on February 01, 2011, 09:53:26 PM
Well, I'll tell you what, if you're going to post about specific admendments at least read them first.
I have "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" covers it quite well.
also
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
To remove a inalienable right, you must be tried and convicted as a felon. To remove property from you, they have to go to court to show a constitutional reason for removal, to restrict your movement or liberty requires a felony conviction.
They cannot force you to give up a constitutional right by requiring you to get permission to travel. To do so would require them to take each and everyone of us and try us under due process of law to strip us of liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Quote from: srkruzich on February 01, 2011, 09:37:57 PM
I'm not going to argue with you on it Varmit, the constitution is quite clear.
Face it, constitutional understanding, extrapolation, reasoning & application aren't qualities found among many in our country. Especially when doing these things with accuracy requires familiarity with & a good understanding of other founding principles and or supporting sources (i.e. Declaration of Independence, Federalist Papers, Supreme Ct. findings and clarifications, etc.).
Some seem to think the Constitution was written in a vacuum. It wasn't. Nor is it a 'living' document that changes with the whims of each new generation. To apply principles like liberty & pursuit of happiness and limited federal government to constitutional evaluation of various issues at various times requires reason and understanding... understanding not just of isolated words but
conceptual understanding of the Constitution, the stated intents of the founders who wrote it, our governmental system, SC evaluations over time, the documents that expressed the foundations for the Constitution. As for reason... she seems to be in generally short supply these days.
When it comes to applying these principles to issues generally under the purview of individual sovereign states (like driver's licenses), clear, reasoned understanding become even more critical. Using simplistic arguments like 'the words aren't in there' seem to be nothing more than excuses for laziness in the arenas of diligent study, reasoned thinking and conceptual understanding.
Quote from: Varmit on February 01, 2011, 08:09:08 PM
I find it funny that as a Americans we holler and praise about the constitution and how it limits gov't. Yet we rely on a panel of 9 people that are appointed by the government, to tell us what the constitutional limits of the government are. Espcially when you consider that their decisions can be flipped-flopped depending on who sits on the panel. Its all a scam.[/b]
You have expressed disdain for our form & structure of government. If you've got a better plan, let's hear it. Shall we entertain a pure democracy with a popular referendum on every issue? Shall we do that state by state, or shall we abolish the states and just have one big pot? Maybe we could get the entire world population on board (kind of a one world kum ba yah thing). Perhaps a theocracy like Iran, or a Kingdom like Saudi Arabia, or a Dictatorship like Rwanda. Or perhaps your brand of rugged individualism would be better served by ungoverned anarchy such as we see in most of Somalia.
So, what's it gonna be... understand accept & work with it, fix/replace it, or just incessantly bitch and whine about it?
I had a view typed out but deleted it because.......well I reckon we all know why I'm not going to bother :)
Just so I have this straight...driving is a Right, not a privledge. Therefore, anyone and everyone should be allowed to drive without hinderance of any kind. No age limits, no physcial testing of any kind, no nothing. Just get in and go...
The "life, liberty, property w/out due process" argument can be applied to just about anything.
As for the many types of "understanding" required to dicipher the constitution...please. I don't need a piece of paper to tell me what rights I have. You talk about the founders like they were some kind of saints. How many people did they kill or how many deaths did they cause in their pursiut of their constitutional utopia? They are held up as icons of liberty and freedom yet they brought in slaves by the boat load. The gov't they established slaughtered people by the thousands through direct combat, starvation, and diease. They looked at anything that wasn't a white male as inferior. And in case you've forgotten the Constitution as originally written only applied to white males.
Am I "incessantly bitching" or "whinning about it"?? No. I'm being compeletly honest about, something few on here actually have the balls to do.
And by the way, before you go pointing fingers you might want to check a mirror, and do a little of your own research when it comes to who is expressing "disdain" for "our form and structure" of gov't. Seems to me that I'm not the only one here with complaints as to how our gov't does things. Case in point...about the last few hundered topics posted.
You asked "whats it gonna be"...simple. Tear the whole damn thing down and start over. There is no fixing what this country has become.
Yes I would argue that driving is a right not to be infringed without due process. I believe Steve has made the case for safety controls.
I don't think highlighting current events that stray from the principles of liberty under the rule of law is as much a 'bitch' as it is a wake up call for a course correction and a return to those principles by people who have a vested interest preserving that liberty for themselves as well as for those, like you, who exercise those very liberties to advocate the destruction of the system that guarantees them.
No, maybe you don't need a piece of paper to define your rights. Of course, in a civil society, it's helpful if all members of that society are living with the same understandings. Of course, your self derived & determined rights could well come into conflict with another in society whose self determined rights included taking a shot at your kids every time they passed by. Given the nature of man, government is a necessary evil.
Complaints abound, to be sure. However, most who complain seem more concerned about the loss of our system, not fomenting the destruction of it as you advocate. You seem to be the primary advocate of hatred for the form & structure, most who post here advocate for a more careful exercise of the powers granted to government by the governed.
Do I advocate the destruction of our current system?? In short...damn skippy!
Our current system doesn't guarantee our liberities, in fact just the oppisite. Our current system exists to secure power, position, and wealth for those who have it. Our votes don't mean shit, our voices go unheard, and our pockets are continually raped for the benefit of a few. We have been sold the illusion that, here in America, liberty abounds and freedom is for everyone. Yet we pass laws stating that marriages must be defined by the state, you cannot practice your religion in a public place, your childs education must conform to state standards, individual expression is to be shunned in exhange for the herd mentality, etc, etc, etc.
Our gov't does not derive its power from the people. Never has. Our gov't holds its power of the heads of the people like a hammer that threatens to drop at the slightest provaction. Case in point, the IRS. You get into a serious argument with the gov't and the first thing they do is seize or freeze your assets. What ever happened to due process?
The constitution may not have been written in a vaccum, and may not be a living document, and it may not change with each generation, but at the same time it doesn't mean a damn thing where the gov't is concerned. What it is, is a pacificer. So long as the gov't can say, "look the supereme court approved it, its constitutional" they can do whatever they want. And whats worse, is that the people will buy it because they don't see or won't see the illusion behind the smokescreen.
Quote from: Varmit on February 04, 2011, 08:51:43 AM
Do I advocate the destruction of our current system?? In short...damn skippy!
Well good luck with that approach, sparky. That's the cherry on your malcontent cake. Poor slaves, poor indians, poor women, poor this, poor that. All at the hands of the white man. While the native populations here were surely without flaw in their dealings, what about the poor blacks sold into that slavery by their own in Africa. What about the whites who fled oppression over the decades worldwide to come here. It's always somebody elses fault, isn't it?
Yes, there are many flaws in our system, and in others as well. Since you have determined that the Republic is beyond repair, I challenge you to lay out
your new replacement system here for us to see in detail. Let's assume you could have your way & wipe out the Republic. With that form of governance gone, how 'bout you show us the plans for your Varmitocracy.
Tell us the names of the perfect souls who shall govern us so flawlessly under your new plan. Show us how to avoid the humanness that has tainted the plans of man for millennia, regardless of race or origin. Prove your solution so we can share in your knowledge of the mechanics of a
better way. And if you can, I'm all for it. Just be sure not to impart your own biases therein. Make it perfect for
all of us, please. Avoid the flaws of our current systems. No disagreements, no need for future change, a system where individual liberties abound without any impediment and all prosper.
If the solution is replacement vs repair, fill the vacuum for us... if you can.
As age overtakes you, and it will, you may find that such a narrow view and the bitterness it breeds make lousy companions for the soul.
Quote from: Patriot on February 04, 2011, 09:43:33 AM
Well good luck with that approach, sparky. That's the cherry on your malcontent cake. Poor slaves, poor indians, poor women, poor this, poor that. All at the hands of the white man. While the native populations here were surely without flaw in their dealings, what about the poor blacks sold into that slavery by their own in Africa. What about the whites who fled oppression over the decades worldwide to come here. It's always somebody elses fault, isn't it?
Yes, it was mostly at the hands of the white man. You really want to do a comparison as to who broke treaties between whites and natives? I'm not saying that the Natives were perfect, but damn, at least have the courage to admit the truth. Yes, blacks were sold into slavery but who bought them? If you're going to play the blame game make sure everyone gets their fair share.
As to the rest of your post...there is no perfect solution. But we could start with the Truth. We could at least make a real attempt at restitution. We as a people could start actually living by the principals that we say we hold dear. As a country, we could come to the realization that not everyone wants to live like we do. We could find our honor not as americans, but as human beings. The solution is not a Return to what was but a change to what could be. But that ain't gonna happen because to few are not willing to change their mindset, something that has been illustrated time and again on this very forum.
In short, I don't have all the answers that will fit everybody. But I do know that what we have now, or what we had in the past is not working.
Quote from: Varmit on February 04, 2011, 10:16:28 AM
If you're going to play the blame game make sure everyone gets their fair share.
Please remember that admonition as you continue to lay so many of America's ills squarely at the feet the whites, present or past.
Quote from: Varmit on February 04, 2011, 10:16:28 AM
As to the rest of your post...there is no perfect solution. But we could start with the Truth.
On that we agree fully.
Quote from: Varmit on February 04, 2011, 10:16:28 AM
We could at least make a real attempt at restitution.
Some of my ancestors fled the oppressive rule of Tsarist Russia. My wife's family the oppressive controls imposed by Nazi Germany on non-Jewish whites in the Netherlands. Please tell us what line we can get into in order to get
our reparations and restitution. Ain't gonna happen, and you know it. Get over it. Get past this 'you owe me a debt cause your granddaddy oppressed (lied too, cheated, enslaved, otherwise dealt dishonestly with) my granddaddy' bullshit. There ain't enough restitution to go around. We start where we start and make the best what we have.
Quote from: Varmit on February 04, 2011, 10:16:28 AM
We as a people could start actually living by the principals that we say we hold dear.
'We', 'they', them', 'us'. You put a white, a black, a mexican, an indian, a liberterian, a progresseve, a democrat, a republican, a communist, a farmer, a homeless person, a prostitute, and a corporate executive all in the same room (America) and
YOU get a consensus on what principles they hold dear. That's the easy part... now create a system of governance that protects those principles for, and to the satisfaction of all concerned. Including the few billion who weren't in the room to begin with.
Quote from: Varmit on February 04, 2011, 10:16:28 AM
As a country, we could come to the realization that not everyone wants to live like we do. We could find our honor not as americans, but as human beings.
We could, and in a in a more perfect world full of perfect people we could actually live it. A more perfect world that included people without heritage, people without pain, people without individual ideas, people without memories.
Quote from: Varmit on February 04, 2011, 10:16:28 AM
The solution is not a Return to what was but a change to what could be. But that ain't gonna happen because to few are not willing to change their mindset, something that has been illustrated time and again on this very forum.
So just shredding what we have on a whim like children having a temper tantrum isn't very workable?
Quote from: Varmit on February 04, 2011, 10:16:28 AM
In short, I don't have all the answers that will fit everybody. But I do know that what we have now, or what we had in the past is not working.
That is a more reasoned view. None of us have the perfect answers. What we have is one of the few systems that is changeable (at many levels, from small town to the national) without having to kill some despot dictator or a few warlords first and then wondering what will fill the vacuum. No, in our system, being as fully informed as possible is the starting point. That includes learning the original intent of what we have, seeing the errors made, and using the mechanisms those damned white slave owners left us to effect change. Fast? No. Always right? Not likely. But hopefully well informed, reasoned and more sane & less bloody than anarchy.
Look at the number of nameless guests who read this forum. We never know if mindsets are changed. But I'm betting some are.
As that prayer says, how about we
have the courage to to change the things we can, the serenity to accept the things we can not change, and the wisdom to know the difference. I know it's origin is some old Christian white guy, but let's try to overlook that, shall we?
"Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary."- Karl Paul Reinhold Niebuhr,
The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness (1944)
Quote from: Patriot on February 04, 2011, 11:46:04 AM
Please remember that admonition as you continue to lay so many of America's ills squarely at the feet the whites, present or past.
Well, when you consider the people that have been in power in our nations history I don't think I have forgotten.
QuoteSome of my ancestors fled the oppressive rule of Tsarist Russia. My wife's family the oppressive controls imposed by Nazi Germany on non-Jewish whites in the Netherlands. Please tell us what line we can get into in order to get our reparations and restitution. Ain't gonna happen, and you know it. Get over it. Get past this 'you owe me a debt cause your granddaddy oppressed (lied too, cheated, enslaved, otherwise dealt dishonestly with) my granddaddy' bullshit. There ain't enough restitution to go around. We start where we start and make the best what we have.
I wasn't talking about reparations in other countries and you know it. So your examples don't hold up. As for where to start, how about we begin to actually live up to our promises and agreements made to native peoples that are STILL getting shafted.
QuoteSo just shredding what we have on a whim like children having a temper tantrum isn't very workable?
Actually it is. I don't think the founders had a plan in place before declaring their independence did they?
QuoteThat is a more reasoned view. None of us have the perfect answers. What we have is one of the few systems that is changeable (at many levels, from small town to the national) without having to kill some despot dictator or a few warlords first and then wondering what will fill the vacuum. No, in our system, being as fully informed as possible is the starting point. That includes learning the original intent of what we have, seeing the errors made, and using the mechanisms those damned white slave owners left us to effect change. Fast? No. Always right? Not likely. But hopefully well informed, reasoned and more sane & less bloody than anarchy.
A system that is changeable??...If you mean that folks have the option of either A or B and nothing else, then I guess its changeable. But then again thats kinda like giving a person the choice of dying from drowning or buring do death, either way there isn't much change in the outcome.
QuoteAs that prayer says, how about we have the courage to to change the things we can, the serenity to accept the things we can not change, and the wisdom to know the difference. I know it's origin is some old Christian white guy, but let's try to overlook that, shall we?
You may choose to accept those things that you cannot change. But I cannot, my mama raised a fighter not a quiter.
So much for anything resembling reason, I suppose.
I'll add one thought... Nothing was said about quitting. If a thing 'can not' be changed by one person (like the condition or course of mankind), then that thing, by definition, can not be changed. No fight of yours will make it change. And if you're determined change the unchangeable or else, by golly. then your momma may have raised a brother to Don Quixote of La Mancha. Best wishes in your quest to tame the giant windmills. I think I'll just leave you to it and have a steak.
Here is the Kansas law that states driving is a privilege. You must have a driver's license to operate vehicles on the roadways of Kansas or suffer the consequences if you are caught. Of course, you may chose to not have a driver's license and go ahead and drive, but don't cry when you get arrested and the courts tell you what you will do or won't do.
8-235: Licenses required; city license, when; appeal from denial of license; vehicles registered under temporary permit; penalty; motorized bicycle driver's license. (a) No person, except those expressly exempted, shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway in this state unless such person has a valid driver's license. No person shall receive a driver's license unless and until such person surrenders or with the approval of the division, lists to the division all valid licenses in such person's possession issued to such person by any other jurisdiction. All surrendered licenses or the information listed on foreign licenses shall be returned by the division to the issuing department, together with information that the licensee is now licensed in a new jurisdiction. No person shall be permitted to have more than one valid license at any time.
(b) Any person licensed under the motor vehicle drivers' license act may exercise the privilege granted upon all streets and highways in this state and shall not be required to obtain any other license to exercise such privilege by any local authority. Nothing herein shall prevent cities from requiring licenses of persons who drive taxicabs or municipally franchised transit systems for hire upon city streets, to protect the public from drivers whose character or habits make them unfit to transport the public. If a license is denied, the applicant may appeal such decision to the district court of the county in which such city is located by filing within 10 days after such denial, a notice of appeal with the clerk of the district court and by filing a copy of such notice with the city clerk of the involved city. The city clerk shall certify a copy of such decision of the city governing body to the clerk of the district court and the matter shall be docketed as any other cause and the applicant shall be granted a trial of such person's character and habits. The matter shall be heard by the court de novo in accordance with the code of civil procedure. The cost of such appeal shall be assessed in such manner as the court may direct.
(c) Any person operating in this state a motor vehicle, except a motorcycle, which is registered in this state other than under a temporary thirty-day permit shall be the holder of a driver's license which is classified for the operation of such motor vehicle, and any person operating in this state a motorcycle which is registered in this state shall be the holder of a class M driver's license, except that any person operating in this state a motorcycle which is registered under a temporary thirty-day permit shall be the holder of a driver's license for any class of motor vehicles.
(d) No person shall drive any motorized bicycle upon a highway of this state unless: (1) Such person has a valid driver's license which entitles the licensee to drive a motor vehicle in any class or classes; (2) such person is at least 15 years of age and has passed the written and visual examinations required for obtaining a class C driver's license, in which case the division shall issue to such person a class C license which clearly indicates such license is valid only for the operation of motorized bicycles; or (3) such person has had their driving privileges suspended, for a violation other than a violation of K.S.A. 8-1567 or 8-1567a, and amendments thereto, and has made application to the division for the issuance of a class C license for the operation of motorized bicycles, in accordance with paragraph (2), in which case the division shall issue to such person a class C license which clearly indicates such license is valid only for the operation of motorized bicycles.
(e) Violation of this section shall constitute a class B misdemeanor.
History: L. 1937, ch. 73, § 2; L. 1949, ch. 104, § 2; L. 1959, ch. 49, § 2; L. 1961, ch. 52, § 1; L. 1969, ch. 51, § 1; L. 1975, ch. 36, § 5; L. 1976, ch. 42, § 2; L. 1977, ch. 28, § 3; L. 1987, ch. 45, § 1; L. 1989, ch. 38, § 20; L. 1991, ch. 36, § 5; L. 1993, ch. 154, § 2; L. 2000, ch. 179, § 7; L. 2007, ch. 181, § 1; July 1.
And don't you think that when our fore fathers talked about right to locomotion meant that you have the right to move around to where ever we want to live in these great United States, that the government cannot tell us where we can live. You also have the right to leave this country if you want.
I just now read this thread on doing away with driver's licenses and thought that really way off considering that the US Constitution does not deal with having or not having driver's licenses. Yell at me if you want, but driving on the roadways of Kansas (and probably anywhere else) is a privilege, not a right. The government imposed driving laws to protect us from those who think it is their right to drive when, where, and however they want.
Apparently that does not apply where I live, as they start driving when they are about 6 years old and by 12 years of age they are driving in neighboring towns. And yes Janet, it baffles me everyday.
The same is true here. We can drive on private property, our own or with permission, without a license and there used to be some provision for farm equipment moving from field to field, but in general it all changes when a driver goes out on public roads and public safety is involved. If a person has a license it shows they are of legal driving age and at least once has proved they can safely maneuver the vehicle they are getting licensed for. I have what is known here as a "non CDL Class A license" which allows me to drive all fire equipment including our tractor drawn ladder truck, but not a regular over the road commercial tractor trailer. I think most states have driving laws that suit their own situations and some allow drivers younger than others. When I got mine years ago ,I got my learners permit after I was 16 and once I was licensed there were no restrictions. Now the kids can get the permit at 15, but the license is graduated with many rules and restrictions on who can be in the car, how many passengers, and how late at night they can drive ( the Cinderella license) for several years before they are turned loose all together. It was all done in an effort to reduce the number of accidents that young more inexperienced drivers have.