Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site teldata.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!drutx!houxe!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!shad
From: shad@teldata.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: Re: Divers license regulated industry ...
Message-ID: <355@teldata.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 29-May-84 11:49:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: teldata.355
Posted: Tue May 29 11:49:13 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Jun-84 06:18:35 EDT
References: <350@teldata.UUCP> <277@tpvax.fluke.UUCP>
Organization: Teltone Corp., Kirkland, WA
Lines: 89


> From: joelg@fluke.UUCP (Joel Gilman)
> Message-ID: <277@tpvax.fluke.UUCP>

> I don't recall my Constitutional Law class mentioning a specific right of
> the individual to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. 

See Amendment Articles V, VII and IX which incorporates the then active
Common Law of England into our judicial system. Amendment Article XIV
extends this to the States.  The Common Law incorporates the freedom
of movement (Blackstone's Commentaries).

> Let's consider why purchasing birth control devices is considered a right,
> and see whether the same reasoning would apply to the operation of a
> motor vehicle on public roads.

For the life of me, Sir, I cannot see how birth control of any type
applies to the operation of a motor vehicle.

> The state argued, under the 9th amendment, that this was an exercise of the
> state's police power, and inured to the benefit of the public health, safety
> and morals. 

The state should have lost right here.  The 9th Amendment is to restrain
denials of unenumerated rights of the people.  The state should have 
argued under the 10th Amendment:

  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
  nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
  respectively, or to the people."

> Restricting the use of motor vehicles does not restrictt your 
> freedom of travel, for there are many other means of conveyance: 
> airplanes, trains, etc., and you can always walk.

A restriction is a restriction and any double talk will not make it
less a restriction.

> This is a far cry from the "socialist" scheme that it may appear to be
> in your Orwellian nightmare imagination. Before flaming away at yet
> another gol'danged gummint regulation, give some serious thought to
> the possible underlying reasons.

I'll say that this gummmit is Orwellian!  With the advent of drivers
licenses the State now assumes, under its purported 'compelling interest'
and 'police powers,' the power (note: governments do not have rights: 
they only have powers and duties) to suspend the 4th Amendment right 
in random drivers license checks and the 5th Amendment right against 
self incrimination in the insidious implied consent laws regarding 
mandatory "breathalizer" tests.  What's next and how far are we to allow 
this unbridled exercise of power to go?  The hidden underlying reason
that I can see is, as in all governments, the usurpation of the rights
of the people.

> Do you really want the state to stop requiring driver's licenses?

Yes.

> Do you have any idea what that would do to your insurance rates? 

Insurance is for maritime and equity, not for the Common Law.

> As it is, Washington will give a driver's license to just about 
> anyone who can breath air.

Then, I ask you, Sir, why do we need them?

> In a world where people still starve to death
> every day, I submit there are more important things to rave about than
> the state tyranny over driving priveleges.

If the countries in which the people starving had the proper ethics
and were not tyrannized they would not be in their present condition.
Tyranny takes many shapes and disguises and must be confronted whenever
possible on whatever front.  Using the same logic, as presented above, 
this stronghold of freedom, the United States of America, should never 
have been created: I'm sure there were starving people in the world
then, too.

        "Real  patriots,  who  may  resist  the  intrigues of the 
   favorite, are liable to become  suspected  and  odious;  while 
   its tools and dupes usurp  the  applause and confidence of the 
   people to surrender their interests."
					        George Washington

Yours always in Freedom,

   Warren N. Shadwick
 Constitutional Counsel