Driving...a right or privilege? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 06-19-2007, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuasiMondo

Even Pennsylfucktuckanians had horse-and-buggy carriages, which, given the available technology back then provided the same level of transportation freedom an automobile would have today.

Living in NYC gives puts you in a unique position of having a public transportation system that is unmatched by any other city in this nation. This public transit system is the only one that can give you the equivalent freedom to get from point A to B on a whim as you could with a car. Given the heavy traffic and lack of available parking that a driver in NYC faces, often times, it's to their advantage to use public transportation instead of their own cars.

Outside of NYC, it's a different story. Buses arrive on the half hour, and on less uses routes, on the hour. The lack of routes means the bus would have to take circuitous routes to get from here to there. When I lived in Florida, a 20 minute ride by car to my job was a two hour ride by bus which meant taking a trip from Kissimmee into the terminal in downtown Orlando, then another bus from there to my job at Universal Studios. Making the ride even more unpleasant was the abundance of homeless folks occasionally made the bus their home, drunk or otherwise. But enough about my sob story.

Driving may be viewed as a privilege, but given the local geography, lack of public transportation, and significant changes to a person's life when the ability to use a car is lost (to include their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), it would be a mistake to label it a privilege like this is a trivial posession.

Actually only the wealthy had horses, and the wealthiest had horse and buggy. Everyone has feet.

I have lived in Singapore, they also have good public transit systems.

Outside of the cities, I grew up in Los Angeles, and did need a car. A car improved my range which in turn improved my ability to make higher wages.

I did not need a car living in Northern New Jersey. I lived in Englewood and Hoboken. Neither required me to own or operate a vehicle. In fact when the state of NJ decided I needed to have an insurance surcharge of $1,000 I said, "Here is my driver's license. I don't need to pay you that money for the privelige of driving."

I also lived in Hicksville, Long Island. I also did not require a vehicle in order to get my groceries, doctor, get to work. I could easily walk to shopping centers and transport to the railroad to get to NYC.

Outside of the US, people I know who live in Iceland don't own cars and don't live in the major metropolitan areas. They walk to work in the ice, snow, and rain.

Walking is an option that many do not take.

filtherton · 06-19-2007, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

well now you're falling in to the same logical trap that has been laid for decades....that it isn't a right unless it's in the constitution but nothing could be further from the truth. The constitution, even any state constitution, is a prescribed set of specific and enumerated powers that the people have given to the government. Anything outside of those powers specifically enumerated is not a power of the government, but a right or power specifically belonging to the people.

No, i'm not. What i'm saying is that some people seem to have a problem seeing the difference between rights guaranteed by various constitutions and rights that are only rights in that they haven't been legislated away. In the former, the government isn't supposed to take them away, in the latter the government has every right to, and in fact is supposed to, take them away as it sees fit.

They are different things, and to treat them as though they are the same is disingenuous. Pretty much every law ever enacted has taken away rights, so to claim somehow that this method of taking away rights is unjust is to claim that every law is unjust, and while you might think that way, i would imagine you'd be in the minority there.

The right to drive isn't in the constitution, therefore the responsibility to deal with driving goes to the states and the fact that laws exist regulating the activity of driving means that driving is not a right. It's that simple. Until you can find some way to show that state governments aren't regulating the activity of driving your initial question is taken care of. Driving isn't a right. Boom. Pow. Tah-dah.

Bill O'Rights · 06-19-2007, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

see Murdock v. commonwealth of PA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

" If the activity were done in order to raise money, it would be commercial and could be taxed. However, in this case, although donations were sought, the activity served a religious function. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution."

Does this not support my original assertation?

Cynthetiq · 06-19-2007, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Yeah... Everywhere I've seen this question discussed in any official capacity, it's FIRMLY asserted that driving is a privilege, not a right. In those very words, no less.

The California Driver's Handbook, back in the day when I was learning how to drive, is was very specific to state on the first page, first paragraph, that driving was a privilige and not a right.

You can see evidence of that throughout the handbook. No where does it say that anyone has the right to drive on the PUBLIC ROADS.

Now, private property, you can drive however you see fit. You can be underage, drive drunk, speed etc. on your own property.

I believe that's one of the reasons that Ted Turner owns a swath of land from the north border to the south border, he can drive as he sees fit from border to border. (Honestly he does it so he can ride his horses from border to border.)

dksuddeth · 06-19-2007, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

The California Driver's Handbook, back in the day when I was learning how to drive, is was very specific to state on the first page, first paragraph, that driving was a privilige and not a right.

But the MOST important part of that is WHERE in teh california constitution does it give the government the power to regulate that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Does this not support my original assertation?

um, no. your original assertation was that it's a privilege and nothing to do with commerce. how is personal driving commerce to be regulated?

Willravel · 06-19-2007, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

But the MOST important part of that is WHERE in teh california constitution does it give the government the power to regulate that?

No where. Can you imagine if there was a list of every privilege in the Cal Constitution? It would be millions of pages long. The BOR secures our federal rights, and the states have declarations of rights. The California list is here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/wa...ction=retrieve
That should clear it up.

Cynthetiq · 06-19-2007, 10:03 AM

since you asked, I looked it up:
From Article 19 of the California Constitution

Quote:

SEC. 2. Revenues from fees and taxes imposed by the State upon vehicles or their use or operation, over and above the costs of collection and any refunds authorized by law, shall be used for the following purposes:
(a) The state administration and enforcement of laws regulating the use, operation, or registration of vehicles used upon the public streets and highways of this State, including the enforcement of traffic and vehicle laws by state agencies and the mitigation of the environmental effects of motor vehicle operation due to air and sound emissions.

Walking Shadow · 06-19-2007, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

curious as to what people think regarding the ability to drive. Is it a right or a privilege?

I, myself, consider it a right, especially considering the fact that these days, it takes a vehicle of some type to be able to do anything like work, or taking family to a doctor or hospital, buy groceries and transport them home, etc.

Also, please try to explain any rationale for deciding one way or the other as it would help me in my article i'm writing. thanks

This bit of yours:

Quote:

...especially considering the fact that these days it takes a vehicle of some type to be able to do anything like work, or taking family to a doctor or hospital, buy groceries and transport them home, etc

is bullshit, plain and simple.

As far as taking someone to to the hospital, ever heard of a thing called an ambulance? It's this wonderous contraption with all kinds of medicine and machines inside which can help to keep people alive whilst on the way to the hospital.

And as far as needing a car to get groceires, that's bullshit as well.

Plenty of people where I live walk to and from the two local grocery stores and they don't have any problems, and even more people use bicycles.

Your entire premise is flawed beyond recognition, but thanks for playing and giving me some laughs.

joshbaumgartner · 06-19-2007, 10:11 AM

I like to think of driving as a right, but it really is probably more of a privledge. The question relies as much on a person's perception of what is a right or a privledge as it does on a person's perception of driving.

I suppose it boils down to whether you feel it is more important to facilitate more people being able to drive, or is it more important for driving to fit within the scheme of other priorities, such as safety, cost, or other aspects of life.

I'm not sure where I come down on it because it depends on the issue.

I don't support toll roads, car taxes, hefty administrative fees for licenses, registrations, etc. so that would make me a bit on the 'it's a right' side of things, but I do want to see greater driver education/performance demonstration requirements, as well as supporting environmental regulations on emissions, so that is more in the 'it's a privledge' camp.

Here is a test question... I'm interested to know what people think of this situation, and how it pertains to the right v. privilege discussion:

In Texas, if you are convicted of any of a number of violations, including DUI (the headliner for getting the law passed), but also driving without insurance or while suspended, in addition to any sentence or fine imposed by the court, additional surcharges are assessed annually for three years by the DPS (DMV in other states) on pain of license suspension. For example, the statute puts the maximum fine for driving while suspended at $1,000. After paying this sum, and satisfying whatever caused the original suspension, the driver will have to pay about $100 in reinstatement and relicensing costs to get their license back. Then they will have to pay $250/yr for three years or be suspended again. By the way, you can't just go without a license for three years to avoid this surcharge! Now if your license is suspended, its probable you don't have insurance either, so add another $1000 fine and another $250/yr.

The question is... if the statute states specifically that the maximum fine for a violation is $1,000, then forcing you to pay far in excess of that through administrative rules seems to me an end run around the statutory limit on punishment for a particular crime. If the $1,000 is deemd insufficient, then shouldn't the limit be raised, instead of an underhanded tactic like the surcharges?

Josh

ratbastid · 06-19-2007, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

since you asked, I looked it up:

Oh SNAP!

Bill O'Rights · 06-19-2007, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

um, no. your original assertation was that it's a privilege and nothing to do with commerce.

My original assetation was...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Much revenue is garnered from Driver's licenses, vehicle registration, so on and so forth. Which brings up a point. Does one "pay" for a right? Certainly one can be expected to pay for a privilege...but not a right.

I think that...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right

...very much supports my point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

how is personal driving commerce to be regulated?

Well...let's see...I am carrying a CDL (Commercial Driver's License) which costs more than a conventional driver's license. This allows me to drive larger vehicles. And I carry a HazMat endorsement, which costs me even more money. This allows me to transport hazardous materials. Ask any truck driver how well his CDL is regulated.

ubertuber · 06-19-2007, 04:38 PM

I don't even think you need a specific mention in the State Constitution. The State Constitution relegates the power and authority to make laws to the legislature. You can bet your ass they made laws about driving. Those laws are enforceable and will stand until you can get to court and show that they (the laws or the enforcement) are unconstitutional.

shakran · 06-19-2007, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I guess JAIL would be too damned conservative of a tactic or punishment to use, right?

Your inconsistency is exceeded only by your lack of logic. In the first place, you're inconsistent because earlier in this thread you railed against restricting privileges/rights just because someone fails to "conform to societal norms," and then you tell us to throw them in jail instead.

And you're illogical because throwing them in jail IS taking their driving ability away. Instead of imprisoning them right away, why not just take their driving ability away?

Quote:

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.

I don't think anyone's suggesting we should yank people's driver licenses just for fun. Only when they do something that makes them deserve having it yanked, like DWI.

Quote:

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.

The hell they were. Or did you forget about those little incidents of slavery and segregation?

Quote:

What would happen if the state government of nebraska felt it was necessary to suspend all driving privileges?

That government would be voted out, most likely recalled, and the next government would want to reinstate them - -but they wouldn't be able to because the courts would already have reinstated them.

Deltona Couple · 06-20-2007, 03:58 AM

I still think it is funny that after all the disagreement on this thread, the poll speaks the loudest. only one person thinks it is a basic, fundamental right.

dksuddeth · 06-20-2007, 05:49 AM

the way I see things now, nobody has any rights. everything should be considered either a privilege, or a restricted right that has to be government licensed before you may exercise it. everyone is too stupid and irresponsible to have rights anymore.

Willravel · 06-20-2007, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

the way I see things now, nobody has any rights. everything should be considered either a privilege, or a restricted right that has to be government licensed before you may exercise it. everyone is too stupid and irresponsible to have rights anymore.

Don't be such a baby. The fact that you can complain about the government means you still have freedom of speech. The fact that you still probably have an armory worth of guns means that you still have the supposed right to bear arms. The fact that there are stories written about how Alberto Gonzales is a fucktard means we still have freedom of press. The word 'car' appears nowhere in the Bill of Rights. Just because you think something should be a right doesn't make it so. I would like to make the right not to live on the streets, ending homelessness, but that doesn't make it so.

Rekna · 06-20-2007, 08:31 AM

If it is ok to take away someones right to vote (for being a felon, mentally disabled, not old enough, or in more recent years being black or homeless), a right that is specifically granted in the constitution, then shouldn't it be ago for the government to take away someones right to drive? Or are you against taking away voting privileges also?

Willravel · 06-20-2007, 08:34 AM

Actually, I think felons, the homeless, and kids should be able to vote.

ubertuber · 06-20-2007, 08:37 AM

will, DK is consistently right about this - rights don't have to be enumerated in the Bill of Rights to be considered "rights".

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

the way I see things now, nobody has any rights. everything should be considered either a privilege, or a restricted right that has to be government licensed before you may exercise it. everyone is too stupid and irresponsible to have rights anymore.

DK, I guess I don't see what your point is. There is no right which is not regulated by the government in some way. And whether that regulation is "reasonable" is determined by law - made by legislators who are elected by the public, and subject to revision by later versions of those legislators.

Name a right that exists absolutely and without restriction.

Cynthetiq · 06-20-2007, 08:38 AM

Here is a border state to California that also has vehicles mentioned specifically in the state constitution.

State of Nevada Constitution

Quote:

Section 5. Proceeds from fees for licensing and registration of motor vehicles and excise taxes on fuel reserved for construction, maintenance and repair of public highways; exception. The proceeds from the imposition of any license or registration fee and other charge with respect to the operation of any motor vehicle upon any public highway in this State and the proceeds from the imposition of any excise tax on gasoline or other motor vehicle fuel shall, except costs of administration, be used exclusively for the construction, maintenance, and repair of the public highways of this State. The provisions of this section do not apply to the proceeds of any tax imposed upon motor vehicles by the Legislature in lieu of an ad valorem property tax.

[Added in 1940 and amended in 1962. The addition was proposed and passed by the 1937 Legislature; agreed to and passed by the 1939 Legislature; and approved and ratified by the people at the 1940 General Election. See: Statutes of Nevada 1937, p. 567; Statutes of Nevada 1939, p. 359. The amendment was proposed and passed by the 1960 Legislature; agreed to and passed by the 1961 Legislature; and approved and ratified by the people at the 1962 General Election. See: Statutes of Nevada 1960, p. 509; Statutes of Nevada 1961, p. 825.]

Willravel · 06-20-2007, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

will, DK is consistently right about this - rights don't have to be enumerated in the Bill of Rights to be considered "rights".

Oh, absolutely, that's why I linked the my state's rights, though now the link is dead.

Cynthetiq · 06-20-2007, 08:47 AM

Since both Texas and Illinois were questioned in the earlier part of the thread...

Constitution of Texas

Quote:

Article 8 - TAXATION AND REVENUE
Section 7-a - REVENUES FROM MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES AND TAXES ON MOTOR FUELS AND LUBRICANTS; PURPOSES FOR WHICH USED
Subject to legislative appropriation, allocation and direction, all net revenues remaining after payment of all refunds allowed by law and expenses of collection derived from motor vehicle registration fees, and all taxes, except gross production and ad valorem taxes, on motor fuels and lubricants used to propel motor vehicles over public roadways, shall be used for the sole purpose of acquiring rights-of-way, constructing, maintaining, and policing such public roadways, and for the administration of such laws as may be prescribed by the Legislature pertaining to the supervision of traffic and safety on such roads; and for the payment of the principal and interest on county and road district bonds or warrants voted or issued prior to January 2, 1939, and declared eligible prior to January 2, 1945, for payment out of the County and Road District Highway Fund under existing law; provided, however, that one-fourth (1/4) of such net revenue from the motor fuel tax shall be allocated to the Available School Fund; and, provided, however, that the net revenue derived by counties from motor vehicle registration fees shall never be less than the maximum amounts allowed to be retained by each County and the percentage allowed to be retained by each County under the laws in effect on January 1, 1945. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as authorizing the pledging of the State's credit for any purpose. (Added Nov. 5, 1946.)

State of Illinois Constitution has nothing pertaining to vehicles, revenues like TX, NV, or CA. I also looked up New York State Constitution and the don't have anything pertaining to vehicles as well in their constitution.

dksuddeth · 06-20-2007, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Don't be such a baby. The fact that you can complain about the government means you still have freedom of speech. The fact that you still probably have an armory worth of guns means that you still have the supposed right to bear arms. The fact that there are stories written about how Alberto Gonzales is a fucktard means we still have freedom of press. The word 'car' appears nowhere in the Bill of Rights. Just because you think something should be a right doesn't make it so. I would like to make the right not to live on the streets, ending homelessness, but that doesn't make it so.

like habeus corpus isn't a right, because it isn't specifically called a right. freedom of the press only belongs to 'authorized journalists'. right to privacy only exists if you live in a safe room.

the idiotic ideas nowadays of what is and isn't a right would make the founders of this country throw up in disgust.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

If it is ok to take away someones right to vote (for being a felon, mentally disabled, not old enough, or in more recent years being black or homeless), a right that is specifically granted in the constitution, then shouldn't it be ago for the government to take away someones right to drive? Or are you against taking away voting privileges also?

After all, the dead in chicago get to vote, why don't all the others?

Willravel · 06-20-2007, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

like habeus corpus isn't a right, because it isn't specifically called a right. freedom of the press only belongs to 'authorized journalists'. right to privacy only exists if you live in a safe room.

the idiotic ideas nowadays of what is and isn't a right would make the founders of this country throw up in disgust.

Habeus Corpus, under US law, is a writ. Article 1, Section 9:

Quote:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.

It's not a right, but it's constitutionally protected.

I've read the rest of the Constitution, but I still see nothing about driving. I am aware that freedom to travel within our borders is protected, but that does not translate to the mode of transportation. Again, driving is not a right. Just because you think it should be a right doesn't make it a right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

the idiotic ideas nowadays of what is and isn't a right would make the founders of this country throw up in disgust.

I agree. They probably wouldn't throw up at you saying driving is a right, but they might laugh a bit. Because there is no right to ride a horse in the Constitution, you can bet they didn't intend a right to drive.

dksuddeth · 06-20-2007, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

will, DK is consistently right about this - rights don't have to be enumerated in the Bill of Rights to be considered "rights".

DK, I guess I don't see what your point is. There is no right which is not regulated by the government in some way. And whether that regulation is "reasonable" is determined by law - made by legislators who are elected by the public, and subject to revision by later versions of those legislators.

Name a right that exists absolutely and without restriction.

ALL rights are supposed to be absolute and without restriction.
'congress shall make no law'
'shall not be infringed'
'no soldier shall'
'shall not be violated'-'no warrant shall issue'
'no person shall be held to answer'-'nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy'
'the accused shall enjoy'
'the right of trial by jury shall be preserved'
'excessive bail shall not be required'
'shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people'

In the first 9 amendments they are extremely specific that these rights are absolute and SHALL NOT be restricted EXCEPT for VERY SPECIFIC criteria that the government MUST show exist.
the 10th amendment is VERY SPECIFIC that only those powers specifically enumerated to the federal government are all that they have and that all else resides to the states or the people.

The very fact that we accept that rights can be regulated by the government has already turned them in to privileges. There is only so much we can say or so much we can print. There are very few things anymore that we can be redressed from grievances caused by the government. There are certain weapons we cannot possess and only certain people can possess them. There are only a few things that are private anymore and limits on the expectations of those privacies. We can only possess property so long as a majority of our fellows in our community don't decide that they can increase the tax base of the city by seizing it and turning it over to private developers. We can be put in detention centers simply be being declared a national security threat, even though we've committed no crime. We can be denied a trial for years, denied right to counsel, and not be allowed to examine evidence or question witnesses against us in 'highly classified' instances. We can be levied tens of thousands of dollars in fines and penalties without a trial and be denied the use of proper defenses at trial because of the simple term 'stare decisis'. We can be held for millions of dollars of bail and worst of all, we can be told that this or that isn't a right because it isn't specifically designated a right even though the 9th amendment clearly states even though a right isn't mentioned as a right, it shall not be construed that the right does not exist.

We've allowed this tyrannical crap to exist because some people think that because they feel something is dangerous, that it should be taxed, regulated, and licensed....sometimes out of existence.

I repeat, the founding fathers would be thoroughly disgusted with what their bold idea has become.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I've read the rest of the Constitution, but I still see nothing about driving. I am aware that freedom to travel within our borders is protected, but that does not translate to the mode of transportation. Again, driving is not a right. Just because you think it should be a right doesn't make it a right.

I agree. They probably wouldn't throw up at you saying driving is a right, but they might laugh a bit. Because there is no right to ride a horse in the Constitution, you can bet they didn't intend a right to drive.

do you really think that because there is no right specifically written in to the constitution that you can ride a horse, that they didn't believe you had the right to ride a horse? They would laugh at you for merely suggesting that they didn't.

Willravel · 06-20-2007, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

do you really think that because there is no right specifically written in to the constitution that you can ride a horse, that they didn't believe you had the right to ride a horse? They would laugh at you for merely suggesting that they didn't.

That's not how it works. You, dksuddeth, don't get to decide for the rest of us what the fundamental rights are. Nowhere in US law is the right to drive ever called a right. Never. Yes, the 9th can be used to protect right not enumerated, but this isn't going to be one of them. There is no legal or moral entitlement to get in a chevy.

dksuddeth · 06-20-2007, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

That's not how it works. You, dksuddeth, don't get to decide for the rest of us what the fundamental rights are.

But YOU get to decide that I don't have a right to keep and bear arms? double standard much?
and again, [B]I[/] didn't decide what rights you have. The framers gave you ALL of your rights, not just the ones that are considered 'safe'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Nowhere in US law is the right to drive ever called a right. Never. Yes, the 9th can be used to protect right not enumerated, but this isn't going to be one of them. There is no legal or moral entitlement to get in a chevy.

again, YOU get to decide that it's not? There isn't a legal or moral entitlement to have a house to live in either, yet YOU want to make one!?!?

What you're really trying to say, will, is that YOU know whats best for everyone and the right to drive isn't one of them. Am I right?

ShaniFaye · 06-20-2007, 09:44 AM

Everything I have looked at for Georgia clearly states driving in this state is a privilege and that driving privilege's may be suspended.

Quote:

Effective July 1, 1997, for all drivers charged with a violation of subsection “a” of the DUI code who SUBMIT to the State’s test and yield a blood alcohol result higher than 0.099% (0.100 or higher), a suspension under Georgia’s Administrative License Suspension Law (ALS) will be applicable. [.02 is the applicable ALS level for those under 21 charged with a violation of subsection “k” and .04 is the applicable ALS level for commercial vehicle operators charged under subsection “i”]. This is sometimes called a “stop & snatch” law. Basically, the law says that if you are stopped for DUI and have an “unlawful blood alcohol level”, based upon a chemical sobriety test result, your license (Georgia licensees) or your privilege to drive in Georgia (licensees from other states) will be administratively SUSPENDED for the following time periods:

(a) FIRST OFFENDERS: Persons who have not had a previous DUI arrest within 5 years (where the arrest resulted in either a conviction, guilty plea or a nolo contendere plea) are considered to be FIRST OFFENDERS under the ALS law. The suspension period is for ONE (1) YEAR. However, FIRST OFFENDERS are eligible to seek the following favorable treatment. At the end of the initial 30-day “temporary” driving permit allowed by the form received at the time of arrest, the person can apply for and receive a 30 day “work” permit that allows him/her to drive to work, medical treatment, DUI Risk Reduction Program, College, etc., but no recreational driving. There is a $25.00 charge for this limited driving permit. Also, if the person attends and completes a Risk Reduction Course (driving school) and pays a reinstatement fee ($200 by mail; $210 if done in person), he/she can obtain EARLY REINSTATEMENT of his/her license (or privilegeto drive) after the 30 day permit expires.

(b) SECOND OFFENDERS: For persons who have one previous DUI arrest within the past 5 years (where the arrest resulted in a conviction, guilty plea or nolo contendere plea), a THREE YEAR SUSPENSION is triggered. No “work” permit is allowed. The suspension begins on the 31st day following arrest (unless an appeal is sought). However, these “SECOND OFFENDERS” may attend a DUI Risk Reduction Program and pay a reinstatement fee (same as for FIRST OFFENDERS) and get their license (or privilege to drive) reinstated after 120 days.

(c) THIRD (OR SUBSEQUENT) OFFENDERS: Any person who has already had two or more prior convictions, guilty or nolo contendere pleas to DUI in the past 5 years will be suspended for FIVE YEARS. No “work” permit of any type is allowed. However, after two (2) years (and subject to stringent requirements set forth in Georgia’s Code section 40-5-58) a person can seek a probationary license that is basically a restricted right to drive, which is very similar to a “work” permit.

For any ALS or “REFUSAL” administrative license suspension, the only penalty is suspension of driving privileges. For all persons who receive a proposed suspension notice, an “appeal” (request for hearing) can and should be made. If successful in the “appeal”, none of the ADMINISTRATIVE suspension penalties will take place. However, the driver must still wait until the CRIMINAL (DUI) case is concluded to see if any license suspension penalties are assessed in that proceeding. Hence, winning BOTH the administrative case and the criminal case is CRITICAL.

If a person has suffered a suspension under the ALS law (for driving with an unlawful blood alcohol level) or for “REFUSAL”, the imposition of a suspension by a judge in the CRIMINAL (DUI) case will entitle the person to CREDIT for any administrative suspension already suffered. However, for drivers under age 21, a “revocation” does not get reduced by any time served on an administrative suspension.

Even more important to a person who is suspended under an ALS or “REFUSAL” administrative license suspension, if he/she ultimately WINS the criminal (DUI) case, all suspensions are LIFTED, and any reinstatement fees which have been paid must be refunded by the Department of Public Safety. Moreover, a “win” can be a dismissal, a “nolle prosequi” (decision by the prosecutor to not prosecute), a plea to an alternative offense (such as a minor traffic offense). Any “win” will result in the administrative suspension being LIFTED or “rescinded”. For arrests made before July 1, 1997, a nolo contendere plea also results in the administrative suspension being lifted and the license (or privilege to drive in Georgia) being reinstated. Please note, this option is lost for arrests made July 1, 1997 and after. For out-of-state licensees, the effect on driving privileges permitted by your license from your home state (after obtaining “clearance” of the suspension in Georgia) will vary, but most states will permit either full reinstatement or a “work permit” (limited driving privileges) of some type.

these are in many places, this is just one link I read it on

http://www.ga-drunkdrivinglawyer.com...suspension.htm

Cynthetiq · 06-20-2007, 09:47 AM

Thomas Jefferson set up most of this infrastructure. As a private man he somehow didn't find it odd to list all your stuff and bring it to the "officals in charge." Apparently if your father died, and your older brother was a dick, you didn't have a right to walk off with the horse or cattle.

Quote:

A 1785 law spelled out the post-Revolution requirements for suffrage, to go into effect 1 January 1787. Every male citizen, other than free Negroes, of or over the age of twenty-one, with at least twenty-five acres of land with a house at least twelve-feet square and a plantation thereon, or with fifty acres of unimproved land, or with a town lot and house, would be eligible to vote in the county where the land was, or in the case of land in several counties, in the county where the house was. Polling would take place at the court house.10 Some of these polling lists can be found in the county deed books (no secret ballot then).

Laws pertaining to property are also of interest to genealogists. Consider these examples from just after the American Revolution.

(1) Any person under twenty-one who owned land could execute a deed (to sell the land) through the guardian.11 This law tells us that persons younger than twenty-one could own land, as by inheritance or gift, but could not sell it without the participation of the guardian.
(2) Every person of the age of twenty-one or more who was of sound mind and not a married woman could write a will and devise property with two or more credible witnesses.12 This meant, of course, that married women could not write wills.

(3) No person under the age of eighteen could write a will to dispose of his chattels (primarily livestock, slaves, tools, farming implements, and other movable, tangible property; not land).13 This implies, then, that persons younger than eighteen could own such property but only those eighteen or older could write a will that would be recognized by the court. Likewise, finding a will of a single young man, an ancestor’s brother, for example, would lead a genealogist to estimate that he was at least eighteen. He may have been older but was not younger.

(4) When Virginia began collecting taxes in 1782, just after the end of the Revolution, the General Assembly spelled out procedures. (As we use the microfilmed Virginia tax records at Clayton Library, it can be helpful to keep up with changes in the tax law.) Each county court was to divide its county into precincts or districts for tax collection purposes. Annually before March 10, the county court was to appoint a justice for each precinct to make a list of enumerated (taxable) articles therein. The justice was to give public notice of when and where he intended to receive the lists from the taxpayers and was to deliver the lists and vouchers for payment on or before April 20 to the clerk of the county court. The justice was to make a “fair alphabetical list” of the names of all free males over twenty-one residing in his precinct, the names of all slaves and to whom they belonged, and the lists of other taxable property reported by the taxpayers.

For his part, every head of household or his agent was to deliver to the justice in his precinct, between March 10 and April 10 annually, a list of the names of all free males in the household over twenty-one, names and numbers of slaves belonging to his family as of March 9, and numbers of cattle, horses, wheels on wagons and carriages of all kinds, billiard tables, and other taxable property. A fine of 500 pounds of tobacco was to be assessed for concealing tax information from the county court.14 These instructions imply that the taxpayers went to the tax collector and not vice versa. It is possible, however, that some justices may have gone to their taxpayers or, logically, may have been in a given neighborhood on a given date to receive the tax lists. Thus, using the date given on some of the tax lists beside each taxpayer’s name, a researcher may still be able to identify potential neighbors based on those who paid their taxes on the same day.

dksuddeth · 06-20-2007, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

Everything I have looked at for Georgia clearly states driving in this state is a privilege and that driving privilege's may be suspended.

these are in many places, this is just one link I read it on

http://www.ga-drunkdrivinglawyer.com...suspension.htm

what you've cited is state law, if i'm not mistaken, but by what constitutional authority do they have to restrict who can drive and who can't?

Cynthetiq · 06-20-2007, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

what you've cited is state law, if i'm not mistaken, but by what constitutional authority do they have to restrict who can drive and who can't?

starting right here...

State of Georgia Constitution

Quote:

(3) Motor vehicles may be classified as a separate class of property for ad valorem property tax purposes, and such class may be divided into separate subclasses for ad valorem purposes. The General Assembly may provide by general law for the ad valorem taxation of motor vehicles including, but not limited to, providing for different rates, methods, assessment dates, and taxpayer liability for such class and for each of its subclasses and need not provide for uniformity of taxation with other classes of property or between or within its subclasses. The General Assembly may also determine what portion of any ad valorem tax on motor vehicles shall be retained by the state. As used in this subparagraph, the term "motor vehicles" means all vehicles which are self-propelled.

ShaniFaye · 06-20-2007, 09:54 AM

I thought we already went over how this was a state thing and not a federal.....am I confused?

dksuddeth · 06-20-2007, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

starting right here...

State of Georgia Constitution

cyn, the only thing I see in that clause is that the state can tax a vehicle because it's property. Am I missing something?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

I thought we already went over how this was a state thing and not a federal.....am I confused?

I should have been more specific, what part of the STATE constitution gives the state gov that authority?

kutulu · 06-20-2007, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

well now you're falling in to the same logical trap that has been laid for decades....that it isn't a right unless it's in the constitution but nothing could be further from the truth. The constitution, even any state constitution, is a prescribed set of specific and enumerated powers that the people have given to the government. Anything outside of those powers specifically enumerated is not a power of the government, but a right or power specifically belonging to the people.

The Constitution says nothing about me not being able to rape goats; therefore raping goats is my god-given right.

dksuddeth · 06-20-2007, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

The Constitution says nothing about me not being able to rape goats; therefore raping goats is my god-given right.

do you REALLY want to use THAT as your basis of argument?

ratbastid · 06-20-2007, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

do you REALLY want to use THAT as your basis of argument?

It's the counter-ridiculous to the ridiculous argument you're making.

"Oh my god so now the government can legislate away any right I have, just like they can with my right to drive!?!?!?"

Okay, so first: pot calling the kettle a strawman.

Second: that only holds if driving is a priori a right and not a privilege. Which everyone but you agrees it's not.

The constitution (as well as other formative documents) establish certain rights that cannot be legislated away, and other things are up to the states. Note that the framers DID intend the Constitution to be interpreted consistent with the times, via the amendment process. It really doesn't matter what they intended as a right or what they intended as a privilege. They bequeathed us a living document, intended to be wisely modified as time passed. Going back to framer's intent is one of the main fallacies of the Libertarian point of view. The framers intended us to think about how WE want our nation to work, not to think about how THEY wanted our nation to work.

The_Jazz · 06-20-2007, 10:32 AM

Dk, EVERY state constitution has a provision allowing the legislature to pass laws for the public good and to protect the people.

Let's leave the Federal Constitution out of it because it is absolutely irrelevant since it cedes the right of local law to the states AND the federal government doesn't restrict driving anyway.

State legislatures have a duty to protect the citizens from harm. Please show me where in a state constitution building codes are specifically mentioned. I use this example because even libertarians can't object to those since they present no threat to the individual. The same theory that allows those codes also allows for the proper licensing of drivers. If you want to allow 7 year olds, the intoxicated, Alzheimers sufferers or those habitual violators of the rules of the road behind the wheel, then I never want to visit.

Cynthetiq · 06-20-2007, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

cyn, the only thing I see in that clause is that the state can tax a vehicle because it's property. Am I missing something?

Yes you are missing the rest of the OTHER constitutions that within the constitution that they spell out specifically what the taxes are to be spent on and how.

Again why I stated it STARTS there. From there it is simply asking the questions, where does that money go? How does it get spent? What does it get spent on? There are laws I'm sure that outline and detail this information.

So far, I've shown you MANY states that enumerate these rights within their constitution, yet, again, you choose to ignore those and fight along lines where they don't exist.

You have yet once stopped to say, "Oh, you know what, they have stated it in their constitution, my bad."

Willravel · 06-20-2007, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

But YOU get to decide that I don't have a right to keep and bear arms? double standard much?
and again, [B]I[/] didn't decide what rights you have. The framers gave you ALL of your rights, not just the ones that are considered 'safe'.

If it were just me, that'd be hypocritical. I'm arguing this because there is absolutely no legal precedence for driving to be a right, and the law makes it pretty clear that it's not a right. That's what you're arguing against. You're arguing against judges. You're arguing against laws. Not only that' but you're arguing against the vast majority of people, not just on TFP but in general. Besides 16 year olds, I doubt you'll find many people who think driving should be a right. You're all alone on this one. And, as you said, I don't get to decide. Neither do you.

As for the double standard: I'm arguing against things that aren't rights. That's consistency.

Either way, I'm doing everything I can to 1) keep people reasonably safe by ensuring that there is less danger (think Virginia Tech for gun control, and Paris Hilton for DUI) and 2) do my best to interpret the law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

again, YOU get to decide that it's not? There isn't a legal or moral entitlement to have a house to live in either, yet YOU want to make one!?!?

What you're really trying to say, will, is that YOU know whats best for everyone and the right to drive isn't one of them. Am I right?

Nope, I'm echoing everyone else. You're sitting alone saying that you know what's best for everyone. I'm sitting with everyone and agreeing that we're deciding what's best for everyone. That makes my stand democratic, and yours anarchist.

Also, I hope you see the irony in your presuming we've taken opposite arguments between this and gun control. If, by your deduction, I am being hypocritical by switching arguments with you, then you also are being hypocritical. Ironic.

kutulu · 06-20-2007, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Going back to framer's intent is one of the main fallacies of the Libertarian point of view. The framers intended us to think about how WE want our nation to work, not to think about how THEY wanted our nation to work.

Wow, that is a great way to put it.

View Poll Results: driving, right or privilege
A basic fundamental right	1	2.27%
pure privilege when the government allows	17	38.64%
A right subject to reasonable restrictions or regulations	26	59.09%
Voters: 44. You may not vote on this poll

06-19-2007, 04:38 PM	#52 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	I don't even think you need a specific mention in the State Constitution. The State Constitution relegates the power and authority to make laws to the legislature. You can bet your ass they made laws about driving. Those laws are enforceable and will stand until you can get to court and show that they (the laws or the enforcement) are unconstitutional. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

06-20-2007, 03:58 AM	#54 (permalink)
Deltona Couple Addict Location: Spring, Texas	I still think it is funny that after all the disagreement on this thread, the poll speaks the loudest. only one person thinks it is a basic, fundamental right. __________________ "It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

06-20-2007, 05:49 AM	#55 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	the way I see things now, nobody has any rights. everything should be considered either a privilege, or a restricted right that has to be government licensed before you may exercise it. everyone is too stupid and irresponsible to have rights anymore. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

06-20-2007, 09:54 AM	#72 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	I thought we already went over how this was a state thing and not a federal.....am I confused? __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

06-19-2007, 10:11 AM	#49 (permalink)
joshbaumgartner Insane	I like to think of driving as a right, but it really is probably more of a privledge. The question relies as much on a person's perception of what is a right or a privledge as it does on a person's perception of driving. I suppose it boils down to whether you feel it is more important to facilitate more people being able to drive, or is it more important for driving to fit within the scheme of other priorities, such as safety, cost, or other aspects of life. I'm not sure where I come down on it because it depends on the issue. I don't support toll roads, car taxes, hefty administrative fees for licenses, registrations, etc. so that would make me a bit on the 'it's a right' side of things, but I do want to see greater driver education/performance demonstration requirements, as well as supporting environmental regulations on emissions, so that is more in the 'it's a privledge' camp. Here is a test question... I'm interested to know what people think of this situation, and how it pertains to the right v. privilege discussion: In Texas, if you are convicted of any of a number of violations, including DUI (the headliner for getting the law passed), but also driving without insurance or while suspended, in addition to any sentence or fine imposed by the court, additional surcharges are assessed annually for three years by the DPS (DMV in other states) on pain of license suspension. For example, the statute puts the maximum fine for driving while suspended at $1,000. After paying this sum, and satisfying whatever caused the original suspension, the driver will have to pay about $100 in reinstatement and relicensing costs to get their license back. Then they will have to pay $250/yr for three years or be suspended again. By the way, you can't just go without a license for three years to avoid this surcharge! Now if your license is suspended, its probable you don't have insurance either, so add another $1000 fine and another $250/yr. The question is... if the statute states specifically that the maximum fine for a violation is $1,000, then forcing you to pay far in excess of that through administrative rules seems to me an end run around the statutory limit on punishment for a particular crime. If the $1,000 is deemd insufficient, then shouldn't the limit be raised, instead of an underhanded tactic like the surcharges? Josh

06-20-2007, 08:31 AM	#57 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	If it is ok to take away someones right to vote (for being a felon, mentally disabled, not old enough, or in more recent years being black or homeless), a right that is specifically granted in the constitution, then shouldn't it be ago for the government to take away someones right to drive? Or are you against taking away voting privileges also?

06-20-2007, 08:34 AM	#58 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Actually, I think felons, the homeless, and kids should be able to vote.

06-20-2007, 10:32 AM	#77 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Dk, EVERY state constitution has a provision allowing the legislature to pass laws for the public good and to protect the people. Let's leave the Federal Constitution out of it because it is absolutely irrelevant since it cedes the right of local law to the states AND the federal government doesn't restrict driving anyway. State legislatures have a duty to protect the citizens from harm. Please show me where in a state constitution building codes are specifically mentioned. I use this example because even libertarians can't object to those since they present no threat to the individual. The same theory that allows those codes also allows for the proper licensing of drivers. If you want to allow 7 year olds, the intoxicated, Alzheimers sufferers or those habitual violators of the rules of the road behind the wheel, then I never want to visit. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo