Need a licence to drive?

[ManInBlack]

It is not the travel that is being licensed and regulated. It is the act of operating a motorized vehicle on a public byway, in and amongst all the other operators--and pedestrians, cyclists, taxis, busses, commercial truckers, etc., that is not a right but a privilege, one in which the government has a HUGE compelling interest to regulate. That act certainly adds convenience to travel, but is not necessary to it.

The government's "interest" in regulating something (which, as stainless pointed out, is almost always purely monetary with a safety veneer), or even their brute power to do so, does not translate into legitimate authority.

By your insane logic, carrying a loaded firearm in public places, amongst all the other users, such as hippies, ninnies, cowards and statists like you, is a privilege, not a right. You are wrong. Technology does not limit our natural rights; it expands them...that is, for those of us who aren't trying to build a modern-day gulag.

 

[stainless1911]

How do you figure that people use other forms of transportation more than driving in the US? People go to work every day, go see friends, make appointments, shop, and drive for fun, most of that is a daily occurrence. Occasionally, i.e. once every several years, a slight fraction of those people get on a plane, train, or bus. In fact, most people never get on a plane train, or bus.

 

[ComradeV]

There are millions who don't own cars and use public transport too.

 

[stainless1911]

Not enough to matter statistically. Just note the ratio of cars/busses on the road. Come to think about it, I only see a couple a week. Thats only because I live very close to the highway, and the busses I see, are running between Flint, and Great Lakes Crossing mall.

 

[mrjam2jab]

I read somewhere at one time someone said...

"If driving were a privilege, they could take away your license at any time for any reason."

 

[eye95]

I read somewhere at one time someone said...

"If driving were a privilege, they could take away your license at any time for any reason."

Then that "someone" said something false. Even in Alabama, which is a "may issue" State, giving sheriffs wide latitude in granting and revoking CPLs, the courts have ruled that they may not be arbitrary or capricious in those actions. So, it is not true that licenses for privilege may be revoked at any time for any reason.

That an action is a privilege, as opposed to a right, does not necessarily mean that revocation of a license for that action cannot require due process.

 

[stainless1911]

due process my @$$, that went out years ago. lol.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The overwhelming majority of miles traveled in this country are not by a person driving a vehicle on a public byway. Air, rail, ship, public transportation, walking, biking, being a passenger while someone else drives, etc.

It is not the travel that is being licensed and regulated. It is the act of operating a motorized vehicle on a public byway, in and amongst all the other operators--and pedestrians, cyclists, taxis, busses, commercial truckers, etc., that is not a right but a privilege, one in which the government has a HUGE compelling interest to regulate. That act certainly adds convenience to travel, but is not necessary to it.

Again by this reasoning they have a huge compelling interest to regulate and license our firearms. Compelling interest was something invented by SCOTUS to justify intrusions by U.S. Government especially FDR's many unconstitutional dealings and his "new deal".

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:
It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest, that is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately.

Nope don't see anything in driving a car that fits.