Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxa!wetcw
From: wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler)
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: Of Rights and Privileges
Message-ID: <901@pyuxa.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 23-Jul-84 09:15:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxa.901
Posted: Mon Jul 23 09:15:19 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 24-Jul-84 03:54:01 EDT
References: <2900002@hplvle.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 23

line

Consider this.  If driving an automobile were a right, as you say,
then how do we get drunks, speeders, or just plain stupid drivers off
the road?  If driving is a right, a court cannot take away a drivers
right to operate their vehicle.  Thus, we end up with a bunch of
killers on our roads.  Anything not covered by the Constitution is
a privlege.  Rights are covered in the Constitution.  The states
have the Right to govern everything else because that's what the
Constitution says they they can do.  The states decided that, in
the interest of safety and the common good, they would call driving
a privlege which can be given and taken away.  In Texas, the state
says that the ownership of a means of transportation cannot be
abridged.   Thus, if you go bankrupt in that state, they can't take
your car or horse.  This goes back to the days before the auto
and applies to this day.  They can however take away your privlge
to drive that car or horse.  BTW, riding a bicycle in New Jersey
while drunk can lose you your drivers license.  Figure that one
out.  In conclusion, driving has to be a privlege or we could
never get the drunks,et. al., off the roads.  They would have the
right to drive, no matter their condition.
T. C. Wheeler