Anyone who believe the state gives you privileges is a moron. drink your koolaid. pay your taxes, realize you are an owned slave. Its not my job to educate you on the matter. do your research.
Courts Rule Driving is a Right
The US Supreme Court, and other US courts have already ruled in the following cases that we all have the right to travel protected by the constitution:
“The constitutional right to travel from one State to another, and necessarily to use the highways and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce in doing so, occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union.” -United States v. Guest, 383 US 475, 757, 86 S. Ct 1170 (1966)
So you have the exclusive right to use public property as irresponsibly as you wish, because you technically have a right of ownership over it, via your contributed taxes? The people on the property being endangered, have more of a right to deny an irresponsible user of that property than the irresponsible user has to use it. The irresponsible user endangering these people is essentially obligating others to use that property at a higher level of risk that may cost lives, if others decide to use that property as well.
Yes everyone has the right to use public property. However, another individual does not have a right to endanger others when the property they are conducting dangerous activity on is owned by a group of people, most of whom don't consent to being subject to higher levels of risk, while exercising their right to use their shared property in a proper, non-threatening manner.
“It is well established law that the highways of the state are public property; that their primary and preferred use is for private purposes, and that their use for purposes of gain (profit) is special and extraordinary, which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit.” - Stevenson v. Binford, 287 U.S. 251, 77 L.Ed. 288
Yes, we understand highways of the state are public property. It's legally argued though, that residents of a state have shared ownership or rights to use the state's property via state taxes though. Your right to use another state's, state-tax funded highway as you see fit, doesn't exist according to this legal logic. If you're a resident of New York, you don't have any partial ownership in, or right to use a state highway in California.
“The right of interstate travel has repeatedly been recognized as a basic constitutional freedom.” - Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 US 250, 254, 94 S. Ct. 1076, 1080 (1974)
Interstate travel via government highways, yes. State funded highways, no.
“The right to travel is a part of the right to liberty.” - Worther v. Herter, 270 F.2d. 905, 908 (D.C. Cir 1959)
Unless you're endangering everyone else in the process, who are also exercising their rights. At this point it's not a right anymore because one does not have the direct right to endanger others lives. This would be classified as a privilege, because if exploited, and thus causing direct harm to others, such a "right" would be revocable, which wouldn't make it a right to that individual anymore.
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of the exercise of consitutional rights.” - Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 948
Again, if one is endangering everyone else who is also exercising their constitutional rights, then yes a sanction or penalty can be imposed on one who is endangering others while exercising rights. Essentially if one's rights are impeding on another's ability to exercise rights safely, they can and always will be penalized for an improper exercising of rights.
“Every State law must conform in the first place to the Constitution of the United States, and then to the subordinate constitution of the particular state; if it infringes upon provisions of either, it is so far void.” - Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. 1, 5 L.Ed. 19
Like Uncle Buck said, show us where in the Constitution the states are not conforming the to constitution, when it comes to DUI checkpoints? The 4th amendment mentions nothing regarding motor vehicles and their correlation to their use on public property.
“Void: Null; having no legal force or binding effect; unable, in law, to support the purpose for which it was intended.” - Hardison v. Gledhill, 72 Ga. App. 432, 33 S.E. 2d. 921, 924.
DUI checkpoints actually do have a supported purpose in law for which they are intended, and that would be to catch drunks.
“The right of interstate travel has repeatedly been recognized as a basic constitutional freedom.” Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250, 254
Again, it's a right, but it becomes a privilege when you obligate others exercising their rights, to exercise their rights under another's choice-increased risk.
Other's rights to deny you your option of endangering their lives, supersedes the right of another who exercises a right while endangering everyone in the process.
Driver’s licensing, as a method of conveniently keeping track of people is also prohibited by the following court ruling:
“ ...pure administrative convenience, standing alone, is an insufficient basis for an enactment which restricts the right to travel.” - Costa v. Bluegrass Turf Service, Inc. 406 F. Supp. 1007 (B.D. Ken. 1975)
The State of Maine does appear to be complying with the Supreme Court rulings, because it does not require human beings - the only entities who can have natural (granted by God) rights - to be licensed in order to travel, only businesses who use the road for profit or gain, which the Supreme court has ruled is O-K.
The State of Maine also allows any vehicle may be operated on a public roadway...” at 29-A §102.
So anyone of any age, disability, or impairment should have the right to operate a motor vehicle of any condition, quality, size, or material because it's their right to travel as they see fit? That is what your implying, and it's beyond ignorant.
All said and done, don't take segments of this argument and run with it, applying it to other facets of the constitution.
I'm strongly for guns, and if you applied this argument to gun control it would make me look hypocritical, but it's really is not applicable to gun control on the following basis:
An individual's right to defend their life supersedes another's opinion that one cannot defend their life, under the concern it may cost an innocent individual their life.
In relation to DUI offenders, they are not protecting their life or liberty in any manner, they are simply causing harm and impeding on people's liberties by doing so.
