Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
Drunk driving is by far the leading reason for revocation of driving priviledges. What you're saying is that the state has no mandate to provide safe roads by controlling who is and is not allowed to drive on them.
|
I guess JAIL would be too damned conservative of a tactic or punishment to use, right?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
Where has anyone taken a right away from anyone here? If you cannot demonstrate the ability to safely pilot a vehicle consistently, then you are a public menace. Perhaps we should repeal the laws against murder as well.
|
It's called prior restraint. perhaps you've heard of it? it's the ideal of not having your rights removed or restricted until you've proven that you can't handle that responsibility. Something that USED to be upheld in the courts, until the new deal socialist crap.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JinnKai
DK, how old are you?
|
not that it would matter, but i'm 40 years old. Does that change anything for you?
Quote:
|
You seriously don't think that someone's right to live is more important than your so-called "right" to drive?
|
not a single one of your rights is any more important than any single right of mine. It's the very same ideal that the founding fathers fought for during the revolution....that every persons rights were just as important as everyone elses.
Quote:
|
And as for "making a mess of this country," this is a precedent set long before my time (and long before yours):
|
ever thought about fixing that issue?
Quote:
|
Ever heard "the right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins" ?
|
many times, it's something I live by every day.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ratbastid
(Okay, Jazz, you actually beat me to that one by a minute or two. This is getting spooky.)
There's AMPLE precedent for the curtailing of actual, legitimately construed rights in service of the public good. You've heard the example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, perhaps?
Are you actually telling me that this so-called "right to drive" is inviolable, and that even the safety and welfare of others isn't enough to curtail it?
|
it's only been the last 80 years that the 'good of society' has been upheld over the rights of the individual. Until that time, individual rights were upheld.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights
In accordance with the powers reserved for the State of Nebraska, by the United States Constitution, the language used, when drafting the manual used to study for the examination required to obtain a valid driver's license, refers to driving as a privilege. For what it's worth.  |
great, if that is what works for nebraska. What would happen if the state government of nebraska felt it was necessary to suspend all driving privileges? Also, what is the article and section of nebraskas constitution for that statement?