Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow
Ok, so show me ANYWHERE where you and I as citizens have a "right" to drive?
We can use your example to further the point. Even Florida recognizes that driving is a prioviledge not a right. A drivers license is property of the State of Florida as are your tags.
I realize that the constitution doesn't grant rights. Maybe you misunderstood me or maybe I mistated myself. I'm also aware that the document restricts the powers of the governement
That said, the states still have the "right" to set restrictions on driving, thus speed limits, seatbelt laws, etc.
Again, if we don't care for them, then I suggest we fight them from the beginning and stay on them until such time as the laws are changed or we voter the SOB's that voted for them out of office 
Oh, and I still think the seatbelt laws are good....and I hate wearing them! |
That is the point. "Rights" are not granted by the government. They have not been granted the authority by the Constitution to do so. The Constitution that created the government granted them the PRIVILEGES needed to do what the Constitution authorized them to do. The retention of our RIGHTS was spelled out explicitly with the admonition that the government could not usurp those rights by making them privileges granted at their whim and under their control.
So by default we have a right to drive on the thoroughfares that our tax dollars paid for unless there is a Constitutional Amendment that grants the government the authority to change this right into a privilege.
Yeah, I'm sure there is some case history somewhere showing where the government does have this authority under their expanded definition of the COMMERCE CLAUSE in the Constitution, which has been used to extreme to stretch the powers of government to encompass nearly everything under the sun.
As for this being a state law, well this is where it gets sticky. The assumption here is that every state of the union had to agree to obey and protect the US Constitution in order to become a member of the United States of America. And in so doing, they had to be bound by the same restrictions as the federal government concerning what privileges they were granted and what rights were retained by the people. It just wouldn't make sense to have a bunch of states in the "united states" that did not adhere to the basic set of laws that made all the states a "union".
Yeah, I know this is all theoretical, and I would not be willing to spend the rest of my life and hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to PROVE it in court, but I still believe that the government (whether federal or state) cannot take the money from us to build the roads and then say we can't use them without their permission. Which, of course, is exactly what is happening, but it rubs me the wrong way that this has happened. Just as it really rubs me the wrong way to see a sign something like "NO TRESPASSING. FEDERAL PROPERTY". Well just who the hell composes the members of that class "FEDERAL" anyway?