Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
In MY mind, people seem to forget, or at least not think that it's important, that there is a part of the 5th amendment that says 'nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law'. Now, knowing that 'prior restraint'
|
Number one, "prior restraint" is a first amendment, not a fifth amendment issue. Prior restraint is when governmental action prevents materials from being published. Look up Near v. Minnesota.
Quote:
|
is SUPPOSED to be unconstitutional, a person should be able to conclude that you have the right to do anything you need to do in order to further your own pursuit of happiness so long as it doesn't infring on others rights
|
but as long as we're defining "whatever we want" as a right, then I have the right to walk down the street without worrying that some idiot with a gun will mess up and accidentally shoot me. Door swings both ways - if you're going to argue that position here in the driving thread, be prepared for it to bite you in the butt in your gun threads.
Quote:
|
, HOWEVER, if you abuse those rights, then that due process of law must be used in order to ensure you either don't do it again, or are never given a chance to do it again.
|
So. . .what's the problem with license revocation again?
Quote:
|
Holding people responsible for their irresponsibility is something we dearly need to get back in to.
|
No question - you're absolutely correct about that. Which is why driving is a privilege, not a right. Anyone can drive if he passes the test, but if he screws up badly behind the wheel, that privilege can be taken away.
The distinction between right and privilege is pretty important. You have a first amendment right to freedom of speech no matter what your age. If you make it to 100, you'll still be able to say whatever you want.
Now, I ask you, should the average 100 year old be driving, or should we consider driving to be a privilege only available to those who are capable of controlling the car safely? In other words, if, at 100, you can prove that your vision, reaction time, etc, is all still good enough to drive the car, then you get the privilege. If we treat driving as a right (which is what the AARP would have us do), then elderly drivers who are nearly blind from cataracts and who's reaction time has slowed to roughly that of a turtle, are still driving. That creates a significant safety hazard. Ask any farmers market
