Come on, it is not excellent research or analysis. It is probably the most absurd analysis I have ever seen on anything. I can't believe that AZ or anyone else is proffering this seriously.
Even if we were to concede a right to travel, it does not mean a right to drive. One is not automatically permitted to drive on public roads. One has to pass a test. As a result of that test, the government grants license. . Something for which you must seek permission after acquiring and demonstrating expertise is by definition not a right. Also, we as a society restrict people's ability to drive and prohibit them from driving all the time, and with only minimal due process. And the due process does not take away a right. It revokes PERMISSION that one does not inherently have. Try that with free speech.
We have the right to free speech, the right against self-incrimination, etc .... a right is something that no one gives you. You receive it automatically as a function of being a citizen of the United States. Driving does not even come close, not remotely!!!!!!!!!!!!. Furthermore, we do not even possess a right to have public roads.
If you drive without first getting a license and get a ticket or arrested, the government has not abridged a right. And to classify driving - with all its limitations - as a right risks diminishing our true rights. For example, one might argue that 1) Driving is a right. 2) We require drivers to have insurance. 3) Therefore it shall be permissible for the government toll require everyone to have insurance who wishes to vote or exercise free speech. Or one might argue that, since we must be licensed to exercise the "right" to drive, it is permissible to require a license as a condition to exercising our right to free speech.
- Regards, Anthony Giorgianni
The return address for this post is fictitious. Please reply by posting back to the newsgroup.
.