Is Driving a Privilege or a Right

[flyingron]

It doesn't matter. He'll say you were driving a Chevrolet POS or whatever the model is, and that is sufficient. You can argue with the judge if your Chevy POS meets the definition of a motor vehicle, but you'll lose because by the statutes that are applicable (not some federal digression, but the one from the Tennesee law that Taxing Matters has already provided you with)./

[RJR]

And during opening statement, I'll inform jury that I can prove a license isn't required but my defense may be limited by the court, and should be considered an 18 US 241 and 242. I'll get it on record.

HUH? Just what federal criminal law was violated?

[Edward333]

HUH? Just what federal criminal law was violated?

Conspiracy against rights. Since the use of an automobile is a right. And Under Color of Law by prosecuting the non-criminal use as a crime.

[RJR]

Conspiracy against rights. Since the use of an automobile is a right. And Under Color of Law by prosecuting the non-criminal use as a crime.

Not a chance!

18 USC 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States,

What law "specifically" of the U.S. Code or U.S. Constitution was violated by the STATE.

[Taxing Matters]

Conspiracy against rights. Since the use of an automobile is a right. And Under Color of Law by prosecuting the non-criminal use as a crime.

The courts have repeatedly said driving is a privilege, not a right. I've given you a couple of those cases, including the relevant Tennessee case. That you ignore those cases that are directly on point in favor of cases that do not directly addressing driver licensing laws is one of the defects in your research and analysis, as I've stated before. The court is not going to accept your argument that driving is a right that the state cannot restrict by licensing because of those cases that are directly on point that I gave you earlier.

Moreover, prosecuting you for a crime that you say you are not guilty of is not a violation of the federal civil rights laws. Instead, you deal with that issue by arguing that you are not guilty of the offense in your misdemeanor trial. You won't be allowed to argue to the jury your "color of law" argument as that has no relevance to the charges against you.

[Edward333]

Taxing Matters, if the cop testifies that I was driving a blue Toyota Camry, there's no law against driving a blue Toyota Camry. The alleged crime is driving a motor vehicle. The judge can say driving a motor vehicle is a crime, but he's not an expert witness either. He can't testify that a Camry is a motor vehicle. It must be proven that it's a motor vehicle. If I steal a cow, the judge can say stealing a horse is a crime, but can he say a cow is a horse? Only vehicles which are required to be registered, requires a license. So, they have to prove my automobile was required to be registered.

What definition of driver and motor vehicle was used in those cases? I showed you where in the Iowa Supreme Court case that motor vehicle was commercial. I can show you cases where it specifically says "the use of an automobile is a constitutional protected right". And not just as a traveler.

"It has long been established that a State may not impose a penalty upon those who exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution. . . . 'Constitutional rights would be of little value if they could be . . . indirectly denied.' . . ."
Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U. S. 528, 380 U. S. 540 (1965). [Footnote 11] See also Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U. S. 493 (1967)

The appellants have asked this Court to re-examine this reasoning, and, after so doing, we have come to the conclusion that we cannot reaffirm the reasoning of the Goodwin case expressed above. In this day, when the motor vehicle is such an important part of our modern day living, when the use of the vehicle is so essential to both a livelihood and the enjoyment of life, this Court recognizes that the use of the public highways is a right which all qualified citizens possess, subject, of course, to reasonable regulation under the police power of the sovereign. We consider applicable the following statement by the Rhode Island Court in Berberian v. Lussier, supra:
"The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the right to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the constitutional guarantees of which the citizen may not be deprived without due process of law." 139 A.2d at 872.
See also Escobedo v. State Department of Motor Vehicles, supra.

So while "driving a motor vehicle" is a privilege, (defined as business or occupation in TN rulings) the use of an automobile is a constitutional protected right that can be regulated but not licensed.

See Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham and others.

As previously stated: TN constitution and rulings says a "privilege" is business or occupation. And anything not a privilege can't be taxed as such.
TCA 55-4-101 says registration and fees are a privilege tax. Which would make it commercial.
TCA says an administration can't use power not expressly granted.
TCA only gives power to license commercial use. Rules and regulations in Title 55 can only apply to the commercial vehicles in Title 55 & 65 and which authority was giving in Title 65.
TCA defines "Licensing Authority " as the entry regulation of an occupation or profession.
SO, even if the courts says driving is a privilege (unless it means commercial), no authority is giving to license non-commercial.

I doubt even a judge can deny those facts.

[Taxing Matters]

Taxing Matters, if the cop testifies that I was driving a blue Toyota Camry, there's no law against driving a blue Toyota Camry. The alleged crime is driving a motor vehicle.

The alleged crime is driving a motor vehicle without a license, right?

The judge can say driving a motor vehicle is a crime, but he's not an expert witness either. He can't testify that a Camry is a motor vehicle.

He won't testify at all. He's the judge.

It must be proven that it's a motor vehicle.

If you were driving a Toyota Camry then the facts of what kind of machine it is and what it can do are not going to be in dispute. So since the facts of what a Camry is would not be in dispute, the only issue you raise is the legal one of whether, given what a Camry is, is it a motor vehicle as defined in the state code? That's a legal issue for the judge to decide.

Only vehicles which are required to be registered, requires a license. So, they have to prove my automobile was required to be registered.

Again, that is a legal issue for the judge since the relevant facts about the vehicle won't be in dispute.

I showed you where in the Iowa Supreme Court case that motor vehicle was commercial.

Iowa law is not what is at issue in your case. It is Tennessee law. So you need Tennessee court cases on the state law issues, and federal court cases on the federal constitutional issues.

I can show you cases where it specifically says "the use of an automobile is a constitutional protected right". And not just as a traveler.

What you are missing is that the courts have clearly said that you don't have a constitutional right to drive a car free of a license requirement. The federal case law is clear that states may indeed require licenses to drive an auto on the roads.

"It has long been established that a State may not impose a penalty upon those who exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution. . . . 'Constitutional rights would be of little value if they could be . . . indirectly denied.' . . ."
Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U. S. 528, 380 U. S. 540 (1965). [Footnote 11] See also Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U. S. 493 (1967)

So while "driving a motor vehicle" is a privilege, (defined as business or occupation in TN rulings) the use of an automobile is a constitutional protected right that can be regulated but not licensed.

None of those cases say that a state cannot require a license to drive an automobile. The cases that do directly address the issue say exactly the opposite:

In the present case, the appellant asserts that the State of Tennessee has unduly infringed upon his “right to travel” by requiring licensing and registration of his motor vehicles prior to operation on the public roadways of this state. However, contrary to his assertions, at no time did the State of Tennessee place constraints upon the appellant's exercise of this right. His right to travel within this state or to points beyond its boundaries remains unimpeded. Thus, not only has the appellant's right to freedom of travel not been infringed, but also, we cannot conclude that this right is even implicated in this case. Rather, based upon the context of his argument, the appellant asserts an infringement upon his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways of this state. This notion is wholly separate from the right to travel.

The ability to drive a motor vehicle on a public highway is not a fundamental “right.” See Goats v. State, 211 Tenn. 249, 364 S.W.2d 889, 891 (Tenn.1963) (emphasis added); Sullins v. Butler, 175 Tenn. 468, 135 S.W.2d 930, 932 (Tenn.1940) (citations omitted). Instead, it is a revocable “privilege” that is granted upon compliance with statutory licensing procedures. See Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33, 36, 62 S.Ct. 24, 26–27, 86 L.Ed. 21 (1941), overruled in part by, Perez v. Campbell, 402 U.S. 637, 91 S.Ct. 1704, 29 L.Ed.2d 233 (1971); Goats, 364 S.W.2d at 891; Sullins, 135 S.W.2d at 932.

State and local governments possess an inherent power, i.e. police power, to enact reasonable legislation for the health, safety, welfare, morals, or convenience of the public. See Nashville, C & St. L. Ry. v. Walters, 294 U.S. 405, 55 S.Ct. 486, 79 L.Ed. 949 (1935); Estrin v. Moss, 221 Tenn. 657, 430 S.W.2d 345, 348 (Tenn.1968), appeal dismissed, 393 U.S. 318, 89 S.Ct. 554, 21 L.Ed.2d 513 (1969); State v. Sowder, 826 S.W.2d 924, 927 (Tenn.Crim.App.1991), appeal dismissed, (Tenn.1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 883, 114 S.Ct. 229, 126 L.Ed.2d 184 (1993). Thus, our legislature, through its police power, may prescribe conditions under which the “privilege” of operating automobiles on public highways may be exercised. Sullins, 135 S.W.2d at 932. See also Goats, 364 S.W.2d at 891.

State v. Booher, 978 S.W.2d 953, 955–56 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).

And these federal appeals cases:

We have previously held that burdens on a single mode of transportation do not implicate the right to interstate travel. See Monarch Travel Servs., Inc. v. Associated Cultural Clubs, Inc., 466 F.2d 552, 554 (9th Cir.1972) (“A rich man can choose *1206 to drive a limousine; a poor man may have to walk. The poor man's lack of choice in his mode of travel may be unfortunate, but it is not unconstitutional.”); City of Houston v. FAA, 679 F.2d 1184, 1198 (5th Cir.1982) (“At most, [the air carrier plaintiffs'] argument reduces to the feeble claim that passengers have a constitutional right to the most convenient form of travel. That notion, as any experienced traveler can attest, finds no support whatsoever in [the Supreme Court's right of interstate travel jurisprudence] or in the airlines' own schedules.”). The Supreme Court of Rhode Island in Berberian v. Petit, 118 R.I. 448, 374 A.2d 791 (1977), put it this way:

The plaintiff's argument that the right to operate a motor vehicle is fundamental because of its relation to the fundamental right of interstate travel is utterly frivolous. The plaintiff is not being prevented from traveling interstate by public transportation, by common carrier, or in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it. What is at issue here is not his right to travel interstate, but his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways, and we have no hesitation in holding that this is not a fundamental right.374 A.2d at 794 (citations and footnotes omitted).

Miller does not have a fundamental “right to drive.”

Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1205–06 (9th Cir. 1999).

But Dean has not articulated reasons to support his unexplained argument that state licensure and registration requirements violate the right to travel, see Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9). This is not surprising because such an argument is meritless. Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1205-06 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that there is no “fundamental right to drive” and affirming dismissal of complaint based on state's refusal to renew citizen's driver's license); Hallstrom v. City of Garden City, 991 F.2d 1473, 1477 (9th Cir.1993) (finding no constitutional violation where valid Idaho law required driver's license, and plaintiff was detained for not having one). Without vehicle licenses, Dean is denied only “a single mode of transportation-in a car driven by himself,” see Miller, 176 F.3d at 1204, and this does not impermissibly burden his right to travel.

Matthew v. Honish, 233 F. App'x 563, 564 (7th Cir. 2007).

Moreover, the Duncans' challenge to the statute does not present a “hybrid situation” as their claim of a violation of their right to travel is frivolous. See Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1208 (9th Cir.1999). While a fundamental right to travel exists, there is no fundamental right to drive a motor vehicle. See id. at 1205-06. A burden on a single mode of transportation simply does not implicate the right to interstate travel. See id. at 1205. Thus, the Duncans' right to freely exercise their religion and their right to travel have not been impermissibly infringed.

Duncan v. Cone, No. 00-5705, 2000 WL 1828089, at *2 (6th Cir. Dec. 7, 2000)..

Each one of those cases directly addresses whether a state infringes on the constitutional rights of drivers by requiring them to have a license, and in each case they said that the state may indeed require such licenses. And none of them restricted that power to just commercial licensing either.

And finally, there is this from the U.S. Supreme Court:

The universal practice is to register ownership of automobiles and to license their drivers. Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process.

Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33, 36, 62 S. Ct. 24, 26–27, 86 L. Ed. 21 (1941).

It is because of those cases and a number of others like them that you will lose on your constitutional challenges.

As previously stated: TN constitution and rulings says a "privilege" is business or occupation. And anything not a privilege can't be taxed as such.

That is not the case. The Tennessee constitution and state court cases do not limit the term "privilege" to just commercial activity, though of course commercial activity does fall within it.

[Edward333]

Not a chance!

18 USC 242



What law "specifically" of the U.S. Code or U.S. Constitution was violated by the STATE.

Not what law, but what right. Liberty as stated in case I quoted.

[RJR]

Not what law, but what right. Liberty as stated in case I quoted.

Eddie, try and convince a Federal Prosecutor to take it on then.

[Edward333]

The alleged crime is driving a motor vehicle without a license, right?



He won't testify at all. He's the judge.



[FONT=Georgia][SIZE=3]If you were driving a Toyota Camry then the facts of what kind of machine it is and what it can do are not going to be in dispute. So since the facts of what a Camry is would not be in dispute, the only issue you raise is the legal one of whether, given what a Camry is, is it a motor vehicle as defined in the state code? That's a legal issue for the judge to decide.

I will dispute that my automobile meets the definition of a motor vehicle. That's a fact issue. Does my vehicle, in fact, meet the definitions. There aren't any laws that says it does.

You say " What you are missing is that the courts have clearly said that you don't have a constitutional right to drive a car free of a license requirement. The federal case law is clear that states may indeed require licenses to drive an auto on the roads."

But I say " By federal definition in US code: §382.107 Definitions
Commerce means:
(1) Any trade, traffic or transportation within the jurisdiction of the United States between a place in a State and a place outside of such State, including a place outside of the United States; or
(2) Trade, traffic, and transportation in the United States which affects any trade, traffic, and transportation described in paragraph (1) of this definition.

Driver means any person who operates a commercial motor vehicle. This includes, but is not limited to: Full time, regularly employed drivers; casual, intermittent or occasional drivers; leased drivers and independent owner-operator contractors.
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulation...ection/382.107
Question 1: What is an owner-operator?
Guidance: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) neither defines the term "owner-operator" nor uses it in regulation. The FHWA regulates "employers" and "drivers." An owner-operator may act as both an employer and a driver at certain times, or as a driver for another employer at other times depending on contractual arrangements and operational structure.

This shows that a "driver" is regulated by federal laws..and defined as commercial. So all Federal ruling mentioning "driver" means commercial.

All of your court cases are easily disposed of. One mentions infringement of the "right to travel". I agree with it. There are many ways to travel. But they use the term "motor vehicle" which I show as commercial. "Drive a motor vehicle" is commercial.

State and local governments does possess power to enact laws(within constitutional limits)... But nowhere in TCA was that power used to license anything except commercial use.

And for the "privilege" of operating an automobile on public highways may be exercised. The use of the word operating is commercial. And I already sow that "privilege" is commercial per TN Constitution by association and use with "merchants and peddlers". See Association Canon. Then the other TN Supreme Court cases says it's business or occupation in which a profit is derived from the public. They can declare "driving" a privilege, but only if it means commercial driving.

The use of property is a right. Liberty is a right. Travel is a right. Commercial use of property is a "privilege".

If you're unable to see past their double talk...you've not been around enough.

Eddie, try and convince a Federal Prosecutor to take it on then.

I'm seriously considering going to the FBI office next week. So we'll see.

Last post for a while.
I've studied cases from even before 1850s to recent. All say that the highways are public and we have a common right to use them. Most says that the personal use of an automobile is the same as a horse, horse and buggy or whatever. It's a common right.

Some says it's a US and State constitutional right.
ALL of the cases says that the business, for profit, use is a privilege.
The cases that states it's a right says "right to use an automobile".
The cases that says driving is a privilege, use terms like "drive a motor vehicle ". The definition in most old Motor Vehicle Acts define motor vehicle as commercial as shown in the Iowa Supreme Court case I sited. Statutes are read and understood by "common" meaning unless defined. But it means "common legal" meaning. Re-study the cases. Watch for where they switch from saying "use an automobile " to drive a motor vehicle. Even in the same court ruling.

And see this from State v. Johnson :
(2) That, if the Act is constitutional, it is fatally defective, in that it cannot be determined therefrom what is meant by the term "motor vehicle" as defined therein. *Page 248
(3) That the evidence is insufficient to warrant a submission of the case to the jury for the reason that the state failed to prove that the vehicle operated came within the purview of the statute by not proving that the vehicle in question was not one of those exempted.

So that means the State must prove the type of vehicle and if it's required to be registered. It's a blue Toyota Camry, but is it a motor vehicle that's required to be registered? The State must prove it, not the judge.

You wouldn't believe the all the studying done. Just takes me a minute to find it in all my files.