New Rights
What an idiot.
Milwaukee School Board member Larry Miller added: “Shame on you, Senator Carpenter. This is an outrage. Our job is to support our students, and in-state tuition and driver’s licenses are fundamental rights.”
Seriously? in-state tuition is now a fundamental right? Driver’s licenses are a fundamental right? I thought that the whole reason the government could dictate our behavior in cars was because driving was a privilege.
We can debate whether or not driver’s licenses and in-state tuition for illegal aliens are a good idea or not, but let’s not pretend that they are rights.
Anything given to you by the government can also be taken away from you by the government. Thus, whatever that thing is, it is not a “right”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2009 at 1736 hrs
“The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other - until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.” -Ayn Rand
This is a perfect example of what Rand speaks. But isn’t it just so with many of the agendas advanced in the last few decades of political correctness. Why else would the legal terms, such as illegal alien, become ‘undocumented immigrants’?
Paul F
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2009 at 1816 hrs
Driving for the purpose of travel is indeed a fundamental right.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2009 at 1949 hrs
Driving is a privilege not a Fundamental right. You are free to travel but if you so choose to. But if you so choose it by driving then you have to have been granted that privilege for the safety of society.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2009 at 2052 hrs
Ugh forgot to proof before submit…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2009 at 2052 hrs
No. Driving is a fundamental right, not a grant of society.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2009 at 2121 hrs
err okay, cite a case where its been upheld that Driving a Motor vehicle is a right and you aren’t required to have a state issued drivers license anymore.
A privilege is a granted right. Those of us with a drivers license have been granted the right to drive a motor vehicle, but that right can be taken away under due process of law.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2009 at 2151 hrs
Owen, I’m not surprised since you argued similarly two years ago that the marriage franchise could also be limited by government action.
Posted by Michael Mathias on June 18, 2009 at 2153 hrs
If a driver’s license is a right, then how can we deny giving anyone one? Blind? It’s a right. Senile? It’s a right. 18 DUIs? It’s a right.
Sheesh… what a ridiculous position.
BTW, driving is a right - on your own property. Driving on other people’s property - including the taxpayers’ - is a privilege.
Posted by Owen on June 18, 2009 at 2201 hrs
One of the main reasons that there is a push for illegal immigrants to be granted driving privileges is to be able to identify them. Since they have no form of identification, they can continuously change names and identity which gives local law officials problems. There needs to be some way to identify those that are bad apples repeatedly. At this time officers have no way to identify the repeat offenders.
It also makes sense that they would have to pass a test to ensure that they know the driving laws and safety procedures.
The budget shows that this program would have actually shown a profit of over $1 million.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 18, 2009 at 2210 hrs
Go try to get a driver’s license or attend University as an illegal alien in any other country…
See how many minutes it takes before you land in jail - or worse.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 0726 hrs
No TominGrMi, driving is a right. There are a bundle of cases that have upheld that. Google “driving is a right” or anything of the sort and you will quickly be directed to any number of such cases.
Your drivers license is merely evidence that you can operate a vehicle safely.
Regarding immigration, immigrants and their adovocay groups have been arguing similar cases recently. The ones I’ve seen, though, have been decided on issues unrelated to that question.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 0736 hrs
You’re absolutely right. Driver’s Licenses and in-state tuition are NOT rights; they are privileges. And a school board member should know better!
MoveForward makes excellent points for the reasons “undocumented immigrants” should receive licenses: Identification, Public Safety, and the reduction of uninsured motorists on the road (you can’t buy insurance without a license). My daughter is 17 years old and drives; I’d feel a lot more comfortable knowing that there were MORE drivers on the road who have gone through driver’s ed, driver’s training and passed a state driving test, not FEWER. Let’s face it, lack of a driver’s license does not deter people from driving if they really want to; we read of too many instances where accidents are caused by people driving on suspended or revoked licenses as it is. To think that not having a license prevents people from driving is simply naïve!
As for in-state tuition, my understanding is that the proposed bill requires attendance in a Wisconsin school for a minimum of three years, right? So worst case scenario (and assuming a birth age of 18 for graduates) that means that the undocumented student began attending school at age 15. But realistically, due the recent crackdowns on new immigration into this country, they most likely have been in the school system much longer. That means that these students came to this country as CHILDREN! They did NOTHING illegal; their parents did! However, here’s an opportunity to offer a potential college student in-state tuition with the proviso that they become citizens or at least documented immigrants. What’s wrong with that?!? Doesn’t everyone win?
Let’s say they graduate, maybe go on for graduate studies and get a high paying job (assuming they exist by then). They now pay taxes on a much higher salary, are now citizens, and contribute to society and the economy just like many of the folks on this board; I fail to see what the problem is. And realistically, how many students and how much money are we really talking about here? Remember, we’re talking about kids who are college material AND when they apply for in-state tuition, risk the possibility of exposing their family to sanctions.
Again, what’s the problem and what’s the real cost?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 0747 hrs
Driving for the purpose of travel is indeed a fundamental right.
I think it was XXPilot and I who went through this discussion about a year ago… we never did agree. He claims driving is a right, I claim that travel is a right, and operation of a motor vehicle is a privilege.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 0754 hrs
And Jason, as has been held up in court Travel is a right, no case has been held up where driving is a right as of yet that anyone can cite to me nor can I find in my limited research. Until such a ruling has been presented I will consider Driving on public roads a privileged right that can be taken away rather than a fundamental right that cannot be taken away. DUI convictions and Sentencing (revocation of Drivers license) are a prime example of how Driving on public roads isn’t a fundamental right.
BVB, that license may show I can drive safely, but if it has been revoked and I am stopped by a law enforcement officer I will be removed from the road and not allowed to continue to drive and possibly even be arrested.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 0830 hrs
If you believe driving is a right, then you must also believe we also have a right to a car; and the government should provide us with that car.
But that’s silly…I mean, it’s not like the government is ever going to take over the auto industry or anything.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 1235 hrs
Chicago motor Coach v. Chicago, Thompson v. Smith, etc. Highways and autos are included, not mere travel. Driving is a right. The government no more owes the driver a car than it owes the speaker a voice, Mr. Pelican Pants.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 1814 hrs
BVBigBro those cases hold up the right to Travel, they don’t affirm the right to Drive.
But I won’t argue it here anymore, if you wish to attempt to drive without a license then go right ahead and once you are hauled in front of a judge you can tell them its a “Fundamental” right to drive a motor vehicle at your discretion not the states and see how that goes over…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 1834 hrs
I’ll just post this link, read it all the way through, http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/protcase/port.htm
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 1850 hrs
There is a right to travel. There is not a right to drive.
The cases which are commonly relied upon are (1) ancient cases, (2) from lower courts with no precedential value, and (3) totally bastardized because individual quotes are pulled out of context or from dicta.
The only bastardization of case law worse than the “driving is a right” argument are the income tax protest arguments.
Posted by Jed on June 19, 2009 at 1858 hrs
Thanks Jed! That’s your free legal advice for the day folks!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 19, 2009 at 1927 hrs
So I should ignore that part about “..either by carriage or automobile…”?
Here’s a better test Tom: have your state try not issuing a drivers license to someone for no particular reason. See how that goes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 20, 2009 at 0742 hrs
So I should ignore that part about “..either by carriage or automobile…”?
Yes, you should, because that case carries about as much weight as my 6th grade book report, and there have been a couple hundred cases since that case was decided in 1930 holding the exact opposite.
Here’s a better test Tom: have your state try not issuing a drivers license to someone for no particular reason. See how that goes.
The fact that a privilege cannot be arbitrarily denied or revoked doesn’t make it a right. Almost any privilege you can earn in society comes with some procedural due process rights. Driver’s licenses fall into that category.
Posted by Jed on June 20, 2009 at 0756 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134037
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 12:32 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 117
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 05:21 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).