There is no "Right to Drive" in the United States

[DunderMifflin]

5 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

So?

There is no so. That was it. I don't wish to discuss that topic on here.

[Robin Of House Hill]

You are simultaneously asserting the entitlement not to discuss it, while discussing it.  Welcome to the board, Erwin Schrödinger.

[DunderMifflin]

4 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

You are simultaneously asserting the entitlement not to discuss it, while discussing it.  Welcome to the board, Erwin Schrödinger.

Nah, I said please the first time. That's more like plea than an assertion of entitlement.
The second time I said I have no interest
The third time I said I do not wish
None of those sound like assertions of entitlement to me.

And yes I briefly discussed it. I can't believe at this point i still I have to keep clarifying this but I am not perfect

[DunderMifflin]

To both get back on topic and start a new one at the same time.

I think there's reasonable discussion to have in making a case that we do or should have the legal right to drive. I mean we pay taxes for the roads to be built for automobile traffic.

There are apparently lots of legal cases about this.

Like most legal cases, these can be easily debunked or supported based on one's position but they are interesting nonethe less. Most of these are used in internet battles to argue that we have a right to drive even without a license. For this, let's just stick with the right to drive.

There's the well known but new to me 1930 Supreme Court case Thompson vs Smith.........


---------------------------------------------------------------
"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.

The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it.

The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions."


-------------------------------------------------------------

This was almost 100 years ago but we still go by the Constitution which was even longer ago.

Now here is where some of all that "lawyers are better at reading things" can actually come in handy for the thread. I'm no legal pro but it looks to me this is saying.you have a right to drive, but authorities can revoke or require conditions on a non arbitrary and reasonable basis, such as a license

[Mlle. Zabzie]

10 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

To both get back on topic and start a new one at the same time.

I think there's reasonable discussion to have in making a case that we do or should have the legal right to drive. I mean we pay taxes for the roads to be built for automobile traffic.

There are apparently lots of legal cases about this.

Like most legal cases, these can be easily debunked or supported based on one's position but they are interesting nonethe less. Most of these are used in internet battles to argue that we have a right to drive even without a license. For this, let's just stick with the right to drive.

There's the well known but new to me 1930 Supreme Court case Thompson vs Smith.........


---------------------------------------------------------------
"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.

The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it.

The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions."


-------------------------------------------------------------

This was almost 100 years ago but we still go by the Constitution which was even longer ago.

Now here is where some of all that "lawyers are better at reading things" can actually come in handy for the thread. I'm no legal pro but it looks to me this is saying.you have a right to drive, but authorities can revoke or require conditions on a non arbitrary basis, such as a license

I would have to read this in context.  However, this looks to me like a 14th Amendment type case.  That is, I think they are saying that the state can regulate the ability to drive, but that the rules and regulations connected to those regulations must be uniformly applied and not arbitrary or capricious.  That is, saying "redheads can't obtain a permit to drive" wouldn't hold up, however, "the blind cannot obtain a permit to drive" would.

[Swordfish]

I can't believe this is STILL happening...  Gotta be some kind of record...

[DunderMifflin]

14 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I can't believe this is STILL happening...  Gotta be some kind of record...

It's not all that much considering the subject matter. It takes longer to choose a Dancing with the Stars champion than we've spent on this thread

[DunderMifflin]

Berberian v. Lussier  - 1958
This one seems less clear to me.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10003377642086162533&q=Berberian+v.+Lussier+(1958)&hl=en&as_sdt=2006

-----------------------------------------------------------------
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. 

Whatever may be its nature, the right to use the public highways for travel by motor vehicles is one which properly can be regulated by the legislature in the valid exercise of the police power of the state. Financial responsibility statutes have been held to constitute a reasonable regulation of the public highways and a proper measure for protecting the public safety.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Mlle. Zabzie]

29 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Berberian v. Lussier  - 1958
This one seems less clear to me.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10003377642086162533&q=Berberian+v.+Lussier+(1958)&hl=en&as_sdt=2006

-----------------------------------------------------------------
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. 

Whatever may be its nature, the right to use the public highways for travel by motor vehicles is one which properly can be regulated by the legislature in the valid exercise of the police power of the state. Financial responsibility statutes have been held to constitute a reasonable regulation of the public highways and a proper measure for protecting the public safety.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

This is a case from a state court (Rhode Island to be exact).  The case, if you read it, is also a due process case and focuses on the 14th amendment.  Here is the holding of the case:

"It is clear that the legislation which applies equally to all in a reasonably designated group is neither discriminatory nor class legislation. Under the clear wording of the act it applies to all operators or owners of motor vehicles who are involved in accidents involving personal injuries to one other than the driver of the car. Similar provisions were held to be constitutional and not violative of the equal protection clause in Doyle v. Kahl, 242 Iowa 153, 159, 46 N.W.2d 52; Rosenblum v. Griffin, 89 N.H. 314, 197 A. 701, 115 A.L.R. 1367, and Hadden v. Aitken, 156 Neb. 215, 55 N.W.2d 620, 35 A.L.R.2d 1003. We think that the exemptions in the act are reasonably related to the purpose for which the legislation was enacted and that therefore the argument that such provisions cause it to violate the equal protection clause is without merit."

There was a prior holding within the case, partially overturning prior precedent, finding that the granting or revoking the license does have due process/equal protection implications, which sparked the further due process analysis leading to the conclusion above - that the law in question (which required a person involved in accident to either prove (s)he had paid all damages or basically put up a bond against such damages before his/her license was reinstated) did not violate due process.

[DunderMifflin]

4 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

This is a case from a state court (Rhode Island to be exact).  The case, if you read it, is also a due process case and focuses on the 14th amendment.  Here is the holding of the case:

"It is clear that the legislation which applies equally to all in a reasonably designated group is neither discriminatory nor class legislation. Under the clear wording of the act it applies to all operators or owners of motor vehicles who are involved in accidents involving personal injuries to one other than the driver of the car. Similar provisions were held to be constitutional and not violative of the equal protection clause in Doyle v. Kahl, 242 Iowa 153, 159, 46 N.W.2d 52; Rosenblum v. Griffin, 89 N.H. 314, 197 A. 701, 115 A.L.R. 1367, and Hadden v. Aitken, 156 Neb. 215, 55 N.W.2d 620, 35 A.L.R.2d 1003. We think that the exemptions in the act are reasonably related to the purpose for which the legislation was enacted and that therefore the argument that such provisions cause it to violate the equal protection clause is without merit."

There was a prior holding within the case, partially overturning prior precedent, finding that the granting or revoking the license does have due process/equal protection implications, which sparked the further due process analysis leading to the conclusion above - that the law in question (which required a person involved in accident to either prove (s)he had paid all damages or basically put up a bond against such damages before his/her license was reinstated) did not violate due process.

So what do the
"right to use automobiles on public highways" and "the right to use the public highways for travel by motor vehicles" comments have to do with anything?
 

[DunderMifflin]

There are lots of cases I'm finding where there are quotes in the nature of "right to use automobiles on public roads"
I'm not sure who they are actually quoting, a judge I'm guessing?

And what does that mean for rights local or federal when a ?judge? says something like that? Anything?

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Just now, DunderMifflin said:

So what do the
"right to use automobiles on public highways" and "the right to use the public highways for travel by motor vehicles" comments have to do with anything?
 

My reading of the case is that those comments are dicta (which means comments made by a judge which are not precedential under common law).  But more generally, I think what this case and the language you quoted from the prior case are establishing (if I'm reading them correctly)* is that (i) we all have a right to travel on public rights of way (e.g., highways), (ii) the use of those highways under the customary means of travel for the time is a "right" in the sense that it is covered by the due process and equal protection clauses but that (iii) reasonable licensure, safety and similar restrictions on that "right" so long as they serve a reasonable state purpose, are reasonably related to that purpose and apply consistently and without discrimination, may be enacted by the state.  So, e.g., the state has the right to restrict your ability to walk along interstate highways; or your ability to drive without your glasses on, etc.  However, the state cannot simply decide that no one has the right to travel along public highways.  I actually sort of remember (I think in Con Law, but might have been in property) that there are a series of cases regarding the ability of the Amish to access public highways using horses and buggies.  I think they found in favor of the Amish, but said that the state could restrict which lane they could drive in and make them have certain safety gear.  I therefore think that some of the rhetoric earlier claiming that a US government could outlaw the ability of people to drive cars tomorrow is likely overstated.  (DM, on this specific point, I'm rather with you - not going to the philosophical argument of what a right is).

To answer your other question, the common law of precedent is funny.  Judges say all kinds of things in opinions, and judges love quoting other judges' opinions. However, the only thing they are technically bound by is the holding of the case - the actual bottom line statement on the law itself.  Other commentary is known as "dicta" (translated "just some things that the other judge said, that may be nice but that I'm not bound by).  There are times when judges perform somersaults to conclude that what was previously thought of as a holding is merely dicta, but I digress.

 

*Note that to really do this right, you'd want to do extensive legal research surrounding these concepts, "keycite" or "shepardize" the cases to make sure that they haven't been overturned, and know in which jurisdictions they apply.  I've done none of that.  Interesting legal research question, frankly, but out of my area.

[Stubby]

Zabzie has read the case correctly. I mentioned the due process line of thinking in my very first comment in this thread. Just saying.

[Lily Valley]

Scot, all I have to add to this is that I surrendered my own license because I am a shit driver.  Since I am a "professional woman"  I am treated with scorn by both men and women for not driving myself.  I do NOT understand this.  I wish more US drivers would just admit they are crap at driving.  Seriously, the road is dangerous.

I'll go back and read this tomorrow.  In the meantime, let's remove the stigma from non-drivers.  We are ABSOLUTELY doing you a solid by staying off the road.