Why Can the State Require Driver's Licenses

[RCP75]

How does his argument lack merit when there is case law and Supreme Court opinions that support The Right to Travel as a common law right. Depriving the government of a revenue stream is the only reason this lacks merit.

[flyingron]

How does his argument lack merit when there is case law and Supreme Court opinions that support The Right to Travel as a common law right. Depriving the government of a revenue stream is the only reason this lacks merit.

Did you read PTPD's response? The right to travel is not being prohibited here. Just the right to drive himself.

[RCP75]

His is being restricted however. That is an infringement of his right and that's a crime isn't it?

[Mr. Knowitall]

You have no right to a driver's license. If you need the basics of the law spoon fed to you, you should start your own thread.

[RCP75]

I'm not suggesting that having one is a right. On the contrary, I'd argue that its not legal for the state to require a license at all except for commercial traffic.

[cdwjava]

I'm not suggesting that having one is a right. On the contrary, I'd argue that its not legal for the state to require a license at all except for commercial traffic.

You wouldn't be the first to make the argument, and you certainly wouldn't be the first to lose that argument.

Sorry, this malarky has been tried. It doesn't hold water. If you want to travel without permits, licenses, etc., then start hoofing it ... but stay off the highways and freeways where pedestrians are prohibited.

[aaron]

Moved out of this thread.

[davidmcbeth3]

You wouldn't be the first to make the argument, and you certainly wouldn't be the first to lose that argument.

Sorry, this malarky has been tried. It doesn't hold water. If you want to travel without permits, licenses, etc., then start hoofing it ... but stay off the highways and freeways where pedestrians are prohibited.

Sorry, but I a believer ... after the TSA said I don't have the right to travel I have examined this aspect of travel ... I come to the same conclusion: one can travel via car w/o a license.

[RCP75]

I may be understanding this ruling incorrectly, but it appears that a Supreme Court ruling says otherwise.

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will." Thompson vs. Smith, 154 S.E. 579 at 583

[cdwjava]

So, if you get cited in Alaska, you can cite this ruling.

Also, I see it oft-cited on fringe websites, but I cannot find a link to the actual court case at all. It makes me wonder about the context ... or the veracity of the case.