Is Driving a Right or a Privilege 

@ericmartin6657 The opinion in that case states "The streets belong to the public, and are primarily for the use of the public in the ordinary way." (supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/264/140/) Which leaves open the question of what is an ordinary way? The court also said "We cannot say that there are not reasons applicable to the streets of large cities, such as their use by a great number of persons or the density and continuity of traffic, justifying measures to safeguard the public from dangers incident to the operation of motor vehicles which do not obtain in the case of the smaller communities." Why would the fact tat traffic is no longer limited to large cities, as was the case in 1924, not justify measures to safeguard the public?

How many times have u been pulled over 🤡 to drive on any road highway Interstate u must have these 3 things 1 A VALID DRIVER'S LICENSE 2 A VALID REGISTRATION 3 VALID INSURANCE IF U DON'T HAVE THESE 3 THINGS U WILL GET PULLED OVER EVERY TIME

Which is a position I disagree with. Either free to use or not. Period.

Driving is a PRIVILEGE if ur caught Driving drunk more than likely ur gonna loose ur prior to drive right.

@@Stl.Cardinals Well, there's no stated right to travel, it's an "assumed right" that you have the right to travel the roads of the country of which you're a citizen. It's the manner of travel right? So, is that a privilege in itself? No. Do I feel it's reasonable to have a certificate showing you can do that safely? I'm on the fence on this. There's dirty pos cops in every town who can give you grief on that even if you're more than capable and test perfectly. All it takes is for one of them to say you didn't. That's why I'm on the fence with it.

@mitchellmelton5132If you want to use words properly, traveling is not the correct word. If you put four people in a car to travel somewhere, how many does that state say require a license? Only one, the operator of the vehicle.

Yes u are 💯 right

This is 100% bullshit and every idiot who claims this ends up in jail. The courts have spoken about regulating the roads many times. This is just stupid. Look up the hundreds of video of people trying to claim this and ruining their lives. This guy has never read a court opinion.

Traveling is FUNNY. U R DRIVING U LOOSER

@@mikerentiers an opinion is not a fact, lower courts are simply impedance

OK, but by what logic is operating a vehicle you own on public roads a privilege? And why does the type of vehicle change a right into a privilege? I know the laws say so, but those laws must conform with the constitutions of the state and the United States. How is requiring government approval not a deprivation of liberty and property without due process of law?

​@@TheConstitutionStudySo, does a blind individual have the right to operate a motor vehicle? Driving a vehicle is inherently dangerous, so it's something that has to be regulated. Hendrick V Maryland has set the precedent of allowing States the ability to police their roadways. Under the 10th amendment, States can require license, registration, and insurance to operate motor vehicles on those roads. If traffic laws aren't to your liking, either contact your local legislation, vote for new officials, run for political office yourself, or leave.

@90sNostalgiaNerd "So, does a blind individual have the right to operate a motor vehicle?" No, but not because government has an inherent power to determine who can operate a motor vehicle, but because a blind person operating a two ton vehicle is probable cause that they are an imminent threat to others.

@TheConstitutionStudy I think everyone is missing the bigger picture........ If the law does not apply to you, then your rights can not be violated.. Government has the authority to regulate commerce. Government does not have the authority to regulate you, while you're engaging in your RIGHT to travel. You have a right to travel. The means of which, is irrelevant. The important thing is being able to articulate this during a traffic stop, which sets the foundation for a court case. Evoking and maintaining your rights is paramount during any encounter with police or government officials. Getting people the proper information and helping educate them is the only way we're going to curb the massive overreach of government........

@combatcalvful (FYI this is exactly the type of debate I was hoping could take place.) Does your right to travel include the right to use property you do not own? An argument could be made that public roads are own by the government in trust for the public, thereby make all of us part owners. But since it is held in trust, does the trustee have the authority to regulate it to protect the rights of others? Does the operation of a two-ton machine at high rates of speed present an inherent danger to the life, limb, and property of others? Does the trustee have the power to regulate the operation of such vehicles on the property they hold in trust to help protect the right to life and property of the citizens?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

But since these "roads ,highways ,streets ,bridges" were built with taxpayer money, don't those same taxpayers the right to set standards for using their property?

@@TheConstitutionStudy - your defense refers to the "Taxpayers" being in control of said standards - when in fact, we aren't - Elected Officials do not listen nor care. Abuse of power has violated every branch of state and federal government, it is all theater.

@@TheConstitutionStudy Not if those standards conflict with any part of the constitution. Any law written that is in conflict of the constitution is null and void. Written very simply in our constitution on purpose to protect the beneficiaries of the constitution (which is the citizen) It is unconstitutional to require a license or a fee for any god given right the constitution grants to its beneficiaries, in this instance the right to travel freely, and unencumbered. A right only becomes a privilege if you do not claim your right unfortunately, so you can be bullied into waiving your rights by the police and by the courts. But the constitution is also to be interpreted in favor of the beneficiary and that is exactly what it says in American jurisprudence 16 vol 5. Any law that is conflicting with a constitutional right, no matter how long the law has been around, as long as you claim your right, and the constitution still stands, that law becomes null and void

Maybe the issue is the constitutionality of taxes. If the government owns the roads and is imposing its regulations then all taxes collected upon all the non-drivers is unconstitutional. Forcing those non-drvers to pay for it is unjust. Forcing a newborn to have a social security number is unjust. Why are the three divisions of the IRS located in territories not states🤔 why Guam why Puerto Rico?

The IRS is unconstitutional check into its creation. That was a messed up not a house vote or senate vote or possibly of vetoing the president by a 2/3 vote. All done on emergency session. Without all members present it is taxation without representation.

Good point.

You have a right to travel. You dont have a right to use a car, truck, etc if you are not going to fallow the laws of the road that are there to keep us all safe. At that point you dont have a right to travel using a car. At that point call an uber, take the bus, walk or just stay home. But do not get behind the wheel of a car get into an accident and then conplain about how a civil right wqs taken form you when you are thrown in jail.

Actually a constitutional law cannot become null and void when in conflict with any other law. That is the whole point of the constitution. Actually only the opposite can happen. The constitution was written this way on purpose to prevent the government from trying to take away the rights of its citizens. Any law that is in conflict with the constitution is in fact null and void. As long as you do not waive your rights or let the government bully you into waiving your rights, the constitution is to be interpreted in the favor of the beneficiary (The American citizen) A traffic law can only make a constitutional right “void” if you decide to waive your constitutional rights

U don't know shit there's no law that can over ride the constitution

U don't know shit there's no law that can over ride the constitution

Again, it's not whether you can travel (To go from one place to another at a distance; to journey; spoken of voluntary change of place. ) but whether the right to operate your property on public roads can be regulated to protect the rights of others.

Black's Law Dictionary is just that, a dictionary. It is not the law but rather is simply a publication of West, a commercial company specializing in legal publications. West is a subsidiary of Thomson Reuters, the Canadian-based international multimedia corporation. The definitions found in a copy of Black's Law do not override those definitions found in the laws. Rather the definitions found in an edition of Black's law are based on those definitions found in the laws and based on how words were used in court decisions PRIOR to the date of publishing of that particular edition. The definitions are only as accurate and up-to-date as the editors and publisher chose to make them. Looking at an old edition of Black's Law, such as the 1st or 2nd editions, requires ignoring over 100 years of US lawmaking and judicial decisions. The reason those two editions are freely available on the internet is due to the copyright having expired on them. Copyright in the USA is currently 95 years from the date of publishing and the 3rd Edition will only enter the public domain in 2028. The current, up-to-date edition is the 11th Edition published in 2019.

@blackprince7510 And since laws are made of words, a common definition is needed for them to make any sense. If we want to know what those who drafted a law were trying to do, we have to understand what they meant when they used certain words.

@@TheConstitutionStudy Pretending that a commercial publishing firm has the authority to establish the only acceptable definitions is ludicrous but that is what many who want to pretend they cannot be subject to any laws they don't happen to like often claim. Of course they also only use those definitions that they think will work to their advantage in their rather silly claims and ignore anything that might upset their little fantasy. It isn't that hard. If a word is defined in the law that you are concerned about, that definition is the one that applies unless you can successfully challenge that definition in court. If it is not defined in the law or by how the word has been used by courts under similar circumstances, then how the word is defined in general usage will normally be how it is interpreted in the law.

@blackprince7510 A dictionary doesn't come up with the definition, but records the definition so others can share it. If there is no common definition for words there is no language and way to communicate. Your claim that words are defined by laws and courts makes it sound like we are ruled by government rather than a free people. The Constitution does not delegate to the United States the authority to define words outside of their use within legislation. Also, the constitutions of most of the states recognize that all power is inherent in the people, who create governments to serve them, not the other way around.

@LuckyCharmsMiniFarms "United States government does have stock and you can be a stockholder if you buy US savings bonds and treasury bonds." That is a lie. Bonds are not the same as stock. They are a loan and convey no ownership.

thank you ! tell everyone u know

Prove it. There is no organic act that does what you say. It sounds like crazy talk. Why would a sovereign become a business? You do know issuing bonds has nothing to do with stocks, right?

No, the United States is not a corporation, nor does some "act 0f 1871" make it a corporation. I've read the "Organic Act of 1871" (but you haven't). It's actually Chapter LXII (that's Chapter 62) of the statutes of the 41st Congress, 1871. But all that did was establish a municipal type of local government for the District of Columbia. And Congress did so pursuant to its power under Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have power ... ... ... To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States,...."

@@mikerentiers Ask and you receive. 26 usc 3002 15 a clearly states that the UNITED STATES is a federal corporation. Said corporation is listed in Dunn and Bradstreet. Dunn and Bradstreet is a list of all FOR PROFIT CORPORATIONS.

And if you delegate the management of your property to a third party, giving them legislative power over it, you've given them authority to regulate it. "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;" -- U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17

@mrDADtheSecond Your rights are not dependent on whether or not government can collect taxes.

@Jeffmd2020 "It is your constitutional right by the supreme Court " Can you site the court case?

@@TheConstitutionStudy for some reason my reply isn’t showing up so I’ll post it again lol… I can’t recall the exact court case’s or number but if you check out “copper stopper” on RU-vid he has about a 30 minute video going over SEVERAL Supreme Court cases with case numbers to verify for yourself where they have tried and defended a plethora of cases for our right to travel and a few others that would probably blow your mind and wonder why we the American people let our states get away with these rights violations with their B.S. fraudulent laws!! I love your videos by the way

There are no US Supreme Court decisions that have said you have a right to physically control an automobile on public roads without a valid licence, vehicle registration, or proof of financial responsibility. The US Supreme Court ruled over 100 years ago in its decision of _Hendrick v. Maryland,_ 235 US 610 (1915), that a state has the authority to enact laws regulating the use of its roads for public safety and order, including licensing of drivers and registration of vehicles, and that this authority applies to all users of a state's roads. States are not limited to regulating commercial activity and no state exempts you from its driver's licence and registration requirements for not being engaged in commercial use of a vehicle. The last state to have such an exemption, South Dakota, removed that exemption in 1954. Every state has required all automobiles, regardless of the purpose for their use, since 1922.

@blackprince7510 That analysis is backwards. Constitution delegate powers to government, not the people. In other words, it's not up to the people to prove the government can't, legally it's up to the government to prove they can. Take a look at the Tenth Amendment for a federal example. Furthermore, the constitution of most of the states recognize that all power is inherent in the people, not government.

@@TheConstitutionStudy The 10th Amendment quite clearly states _"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, _*_or to the people."_* And the people of every state of the USA have granted authority to their respective governments to enact and enforce laws requiring possession of a driver's licence when in physical control of an automobile on public roads and registration of automobiles and other motor vehicles used on public roads. If the people of a state did not want to be subject to such laws, they can elect representatives who will amend or repeal such laws. When it comes to vehicle registration, the people of every state have had over 100 years to do so. For driver's licences, the people of each state have had as of 2023 anywhere from 69 years (South Dakota) to over 120 years (Massachusetts and Missouri) to do so. If you wish to challenge the constitutionality of a law, it is not sufficient to simply say it is not constitutional and insist the state prove otherwise. You actually have to present arguments as to why the law is unconstitutional. That is how the system works. Plenty of people over the years have argued that driver's licence and vehicle registration laws are unconstitutional and none have had their arguments accepted as valid.

But you are not free to operate all person property on sidewalks. Most locations require that you register certain "pleasure vehicles" before they can be operated on publicly held land. Governments cannot give unalienable rights, only your creator can. Any right the government gives, it can take away. Civil liberty is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation -- From the Webster's 1828 dictionary definition of liberty. Personally, I'm am still on the fence on this question. I see both sides and have not seen a compelling constitutional argument one way or another. Did our Founding Fathers require some form of license to captain a ship? If so, then isn't the licensing of operating a car or truck not so much a black and white matter, but one of degrees?

@@TheConstitutionStudy I think it's all pretty simple, really. Any DMV fees which impact safe drivers not subject to any penalties due to citations, wrecks or DUI should be fair and reasonable. The issue with licensure is less about the individual driver and the government as it is about collective safety and responsibility. Licensure is contingent upon having demonstrated a proficiency in safely and responsibly operating an on-average 4100-Lb projectile capable of speeds in excess of 100 MPH. We let teenagers between 14 and 16 enter into a two-year graduating process beginning with Learner's Permit (Requires the presence of a licensed driver over 18 as a front passenger.) Restricted License (Dawn to Dusk, which is somewhat arbitrary given the amount of sunlight in a given Solstice) and Full Licensure. As licensure is contingent upon reasonable expectation that you can handle a potential death-trap, there's a valid public safety interest.

You 100% can get a ticket for a bike or motorcycle or car on the sidewalk./

It's very obvious that a bicycle or skateboard presents a trivial risk compared to a 3,500 pound car going 75 MPH! Come on man, use your brains. people are really articulate with words when trying to justify driving without a license and insurance, by ALL of them flunked high school physics. Mass times Velocity equals DAMAGE POTENTIAL so you must have proof of minimum required competence and valid liability insurance, that's why driving requires a license. Use your fucking head.

@jayknight9283 An interesting analogy, but there are a couple of issues with it. First, there is nothing illegal about yelling fire in a crowded theatre. And no, the Supreme Court never said you couldn't, it was used as an example that you couldn't claim freedom of speech to get out of the consequences of falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. I think a better question is when and how can your actions on public property be restrained for the safety of society? For those who oppose licenses for operating a motor vehicle, what about for operating an airplane to get around? Before you answer, think about traffic around airports and restricted airspace. Do people really want unlicensed pilots flying into and out of the airports with commercial airliners they are flying on?

@chaleechan7805 "I could see an airport requiring legal vehicles" But what makes a vehicle legal? Does the state have the right to require you register your private property with them? "I could see gas stations doing it too. Private airstrips might be different." Gas stations and private airports are the private property, meaning they have the legal authority to limit access without cause. Public places are, by definition, public. Governments are limited by their constitutions in their ability to control access.

If you are so smart, mind writing a sentence we can understand?

@@mikerentiers Okay dumb little girl go cry to somebody who cares, and you can take your messed up language and fly it up your woman's 🗃

@@mikerentiers This is not your class teach, and even if I took the time for proper pros, you would still be confused, go play in a sandbox, take a run on the beach. Go play tennis that is your Iq ceiling.

That would be because the vast majority of people have a licence. But those without a licence are disproportionately involved in fatal automobile accidents, are more likely to be involved in a hit and run, and are more likely to be driving under the influence of alcohol.

@@blackprince7510 You're creating unstated statistics in your imagination. My argument isn't about with vs without. It's the entire premise of having the license is for "safety". Majority having a license hasn't made you any safer. The police don't prevent crime and aren't required to protect you. They don't obey the laws they enforce. Bottom line the driver license is commercial. Either you choose to operate in commerce or not.

@@ImNotHereToArgueFacts I'll address your comment about driver's licences being commercial first. The claim that a driver's licence is strictly commercial is not supported by any reading of the law nor has any court ruled that such a law may only apply to those engaged in commerce. Which is why every state has both a non-commercial driver's licence and a Commercial Driver's Licence (CDL). The requirements to obtain the latter are generally more stringent and you may be obligated to have a regular medical checkup in order to maintain it. As for my comment about unlicensed drivers being over represented in fatal accidents, being more likely to flee the scene of an accident, and being more likely to be intoxicated, I did invent that. Feel free to look up and read the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety report published in 2011 called Unlicensed to Kill. You may find it by doing a google search or by using the following: www _dot_ adtsea _dot_ org _slash_ webfiles _slash_ fnitools _slash_ documents _slash_ aaa-unlicensed-to-kill _dot_ pdf Substitute "." for _dot_ and "/" for _slash_ if you can't figure out what you are supposed to do.

Trucker, thanks for the question. If you own that property, then yes you have an unalienable right to only to do with that land what you want, but to the proceeds of the land and what you do with it, as long as you do not infringe on the rights of others. This type of question often makes me think of building codes, land use restrictions, and my personal bug-a-boo, Home Owners Associations. These are often created under the guise of keeping everyone safe from what might happen rather than what has. It's bad enough when those in government decide they have the authority to tell the people who created them how to live their lives. It's quite another when we voluntarily give up our property rights to live in a community we like. That is why I will not purchase land in a HOA.

@@TheConstitutionStudy but you don't technically ever own your property if you have to pay property taxes.

@@inyourbusiness73 You don't pay property taxes, property is held hostage to be seized if you do not give thieves calling themselves government money they call taxes to keep the ignorant appeased. "And thus, I think, it is very easy to conceive, without any difficulty, how labour could at first begin a title of property in the common things of Nature, and how the spending it upon our uses bounded it; so that there could then be no reason of quarrelling about title, nor any doubt about the largeness of possession it gave. Right and conveniency went together. For as a man had a right to all he could employ his labour upon, so he had no temptation to labour for more than he could make use of. This left no room for controversy about the title, nor for encroachment on the right of others. What portion a man carved to himself was easily seen; and it was useless, as well as dishonest, to carve himself too much, or take more than he needed" - John Locke, Second Treatise on Government

Yes u do if u are a sovereign citizen

@@user-we1rn9hg4m That is an oxymoron, there is no such thing as a sovereign citizen.

The public does own the roads, through their government. The question is, does that government have the legitimate power to regulate how those roads get used, and what are the limits on that power.

@TheConstitutionStudy not with out my 2nd amendment getting me a jury trial

@@sloverspellitright9664 the 2 amendment is the right to keep and bear arms

@user-by3ux5ou3y What makes it a privilege? Where does government get the authority to regulate it?

@Jeffmd2020 But like all public property, it is held in trust by the government. What about the people's right to establish common rules to protect their life, liberty, and property?

So what if you aren’t using a car that’s registered to your name

@robertrentz6999 You can contact me through The Constitution Study website, constitutionstudy.com

nothing can trump the US constitution.

@@mikerentiers: Well see U. S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to.... ... ... To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;...."

It is not absolute. You Sov Cits have s serious reading problem. The courts have said s number of times that the state may regulate travel in the interest of public safety, so. long as the laws are tailored and applied evenly. Also by your own argument the 9th and 10th give the power to the states.

@@mikerentiers look up the words inalienable and unalienable

@johncomments2730 Except states require a license to operate a motor vehicle regardless of whether or not it is used for commercial purposes. Do the state constitutions empower them to do so?

Some say that "operate" and "drive" imply commerce.

@principlesandpolitics615 This type of discussion is what I've been hoping for with this video. I know courts have made statement, but they are not the supreme law of the land, (read Article VI, Clause 2). The question I've been debating is a constitutional one... Do the states, under the auspices of public safety, have the right to regulate the use of private property on public property. If so, under what circumstances and limitations.

@TheConstitutionStudy we are going to become friends quickly. .. public lands are for the use and enjoyment of all. It is my belief that under the general welfare clause the states absolutely would not only have the ability but the responsibility to regulate the usage. The real issue for me is where that regulation steps over the line. The policing powers much like the commerce clause and general welfare clause are so abused and taken out of context that the federal government is no longer a limited government. It has given itself unlimited power and authority simply by claim it relates to one of those clauses. If something is to be regulated, those regulations must stay within the confines its purpose. Example regulation of driving should be kept to public safety and one's ability. Suspending a license for an unrelated municipal ordinance violation or other reasons is an abuse.

@principlesandpolitics615 Except the General Welfare Clause does not apply to the states. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; -- Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (General Welfare Clause) This also brings up an important point, where do the states have the authority to issue drivers licenses? It would have to come from the constitution of the state. Something else for me to research.

@TheConstitutionStudy the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause also do not apply to the states. But are examples of abuse and overreach because of incomplete reading and misinterpretation.

@TheConstitutionStudy states derive their power and ability to license under their police powers. To be perfectly honest having read my state constitution and the US I'm not exactly sure where that comes from. I have seen nothing that directly delegates such power or authority. It is implied in most legislation. And skirted around under most legislative authority in state constitutiins.

My Pleasure.

@LuckyCharmsMiniFarms Have you actually read the Organic Act of 1871? (memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsb&fileName=041/llsb041.db&recNum=3044) It's full name is District of Columbia Organic Act, because it created a municipal corporation for the District of Columbia, NOT the United States.

thank you ! tell everyone u know

@tjg2582 The Supreme Court does not rule! It makes decisions and offers opinions, but it does not rule. And the decision of a court is NOT the supreme law of the land, according to Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. -- Article VI, Clause 2 None of which changes the basic question... do governments have the authority to license the use of private property on public roads?

the supreme court ruled zero times that you don't need a license

@nizexlizzy - First, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments say you cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. I don't mean to sound pedantic, but the details matter. Second, the counties didn't just "come along", they actually pre-date both the states and the United States. The states were created by their own constitutions. While I have not done exhaustive research on the subject, it is my understanding that the state constitutions establish the governments for the counties, including their powers. Those governments have an elected legislative branch with the power to tax. There is no need for an enumeration, since the apportionment clause requires direct taxes to be apportioned to the states, not the local governments. They are not "getting around" the taxing clause, it simply does not apply to them. So the people of your state have created both the state and local governments through their constitution. Taxes were levied by a representative body in the county. Every state I am aware of have a judicial system by which someone can challenge the levying of taxes. While it doesn't mean every actor along the way followed it, due process is available to those taxpayers who fail to follow the legitimate law of a legitimately established government.

If the land is not under a land patent, then you are listed as a leasee on the deed and do not have allodial title (true ownership) of the land

@@mikem5475 You should actually go research land patents and where they came from. Also, research allodial titles while you're at it. The original people purchasing or being granted these lands may have had these titles, but as soon as they sold some of it to someone else, they were given a warranty deed which guaranteed the next person in line that the person granting the property owned it outright and that no one else had claim to it. If you actually got out of your chair and went down to your local county courthouse, you can review all of these deeds. Our county goes back to 1820, and it is some pretty interesting stuff to go see. Everything was written in cursive back in the day, though, so if you can't read it, there is no point.

@@nizexlizzy Interesting, I heard that the land patent is the only way out of property tax, having allodial title. I have not been told of warranty deeds having the same effect

@@mikem5475 I'm not saying that as allodial or land patents do nothing towards that end, either. The main guy pushing this stuff makes claims like that but never backs it up. I got his book, and it was a complete waste of time and money as he spends more time rambling on about other stuff than getting into any actual meat related to land patents. Just google Land Patents and you can read all about them. They were only used in a few places to get people to move off the coasts and live in parts of the country that were uninhabited. They were never passed on to other people, as only the first person getting the paperwork possessed it. Afterward, deeds were used. On a side note: I am currently working on my county to provide documentation proving they have the ability to tax my personal property. I'm attempting to force them to show me where the law provides for these types of taxes, as I think they are illegal. The only tax against personal property is one using enumeration, and that is not what they're doing. They could be totally legal, however, but I want to see it in black and white. If they are legal, you have to pay them no matter what type of paperwork you possess.

No court case can grant a right. Federal District Courts hear cases and the Circuit and Supreme courts offer opinions.

Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579, 155 Va. 367 (Va. 1930), was a Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia decision regarding a city ordinance that allowed the Mr. Smith, the chief of police of Lynchburg, VA, to revoke driver's licence for any reason that Mr. Smith deemed made a person no longer fit to drive an automobile on that city's streets. Mr. Thompson, having had his licence revoked, challenged the constitutionality of the city ordinance. The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia ruled that the ordinance gave Mr. Smith authority that he was not permitted to have and allowed for arbitrary revoking of licences. What it did not do was ruled that a state or municipality could not require possession of a driver's licence. Immediately following the paragraph commonly quoted by those claiming the case supports the notion you cannot be required to possess a driver's licence are these two paragraphs: _"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. Taylor v. Smith, 140 Va. 217, 124 S. E. 259; Ex parte Dickey, 76 W. Va. 576, 85 S. E. 781, L. R. A. 1915-F, 840; Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wash. 657, 168 Pac. 516, L. R. A. 1918-B, 909, Ann. Cas. 1918-C, 942._ _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 others of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions."_ - _Thompson v. Smith,_ 155 Va. 367, 377 (Va. 1930) At the time of this decision in 1930, Virginia allowed a municipality to enact an ordinance requiring possession of a city-issued licence in order to drive an automobile on its streets. Two years later in 1932, the state revoked this authority and enacted a state-wide law requiring possession of a state-issued licence when driving an automobile on the state's public roads. This requirement is one that still exists in the laws of Virginia over 90 years later. A Virginia Supreme Court decision does not create binding precedent for any court outside of Virginia. It can at best only create precedent that another state's courts may find persuasive.

@@TheConstitutionStudy God already granted us with certain inalienable rights at birth, and one of those rights is the right to travel freely, without any interference of any kind from any Government Entity. Free Travel is a God Given Right, like it, or not, and since Government is not God, and you are not God, GOVERNMENT CANNOT TAKE THAT RIGHT AWAY FROM US FOR ANY REASON, AND NEITHER CAN YOU !!!!! SINCE GOD GAVE US THAT RIGHT, THEN GOD, AND ONLY GOD, AND NO ONE ELSE BUT GOD CAN TAKE IT AWAY, PERIOD, END OF DISCUSSION !!!!! POLICE, COURTS, AND JUDGES ARE NOT GOD, THEREFORE, THEY CANNOT TAKE IT AWAY EITHER !!!!! They think they can simply because they have been allowed to do it for so long, without challenges. God created all of us equal, he did not create Government, Police, Courts, or Judges to be any better than us, or have any kind of Power, or Authority over us.

@@blackprince7510 Right. People need to read entire decisions. Sov Cits love to cherry-pick one or two sentences from a multi-page decision on often complicated subjects.

@@kevinswinyer3176 God did not build the roads that you want to use nor did he make the car that you want to use. Your religious beliefs are completely irrelevant to whether or not you can be subject to the laws enacted by the representatives of the people amongst whom you live. The people of a state own the roads COLLECTIVELY and they get to establish rules for their use. Denying you permission to drive an automobile on those roads because you refuse to obtain or cannot obtain a licence does not prevent you from exercising your right to travel by other means. Try walking, riding a bike, catching the bus, or begging a friend to take enough pity on you to give you a ride.

The argument that only those physically controlling, aka driving, an automobile or other motor vehicle for commercial purposes may be subject to state motor vehicle law requiring possession of a licence and registration of the vehicle has been repeatedly rejected by the courts.

@sapphirem7199 Did you pay the contractor who built the roads? No, you paid taxes and ask a government to build the roads. So legally the government owns the road in trust for the people.

@danblackburn2859 "The roads are funded by the public and for use by the public." Yes, the roads are funded by the public, through collection of taxes by government. We've delegated the power to build those roads, and logically, to regulate their use.

But the use of those roads may be regulated for public safety and order as a legitimate exercise of a state's police power under US constitutional law.

@@blackprince7510 @TheConstitutionStudy What regulation can be used to deny a right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness?

@@ImNotHereToArgueFacts The requirement to possess a driver's licence has no connection to the right to life and your life may be taken if you commit an act that allows for your execution as punishment. The right to liberty does not preclude you from being sent to prison for violations of the law where such a punishment is deemed reasonalbe. The pursuit of happiness is just that, the pursuit. You have no inalienable right to be happy. The courts have consistently rejected the right to travel arguments and not engaged in commerce arguments as a defence against a charge of violating state law requiring a valid licence as part of the regulation the use of an automobile on public roads. You are not special. You are not in possession of some knowledge few others have. You are subject to the law just like everyone else. Your opinion that such laws as a driver's licence requirement violates your rights matters not in the slightest if no court agrees with you. Enjoy your fines and possible jail time if you choose to act on your belief and violate state motor vehicle law.

@@blackprince7510 Cite your case law rejecting the right to travel. Driver license and other transportation code related requirements are concerning matters of commerce.

You are so welcome!

@user-jd6wb8hp4e First, I recommend people study the Constitution. Not only will it help them know when their rights are being violated, it will help them make better decisions about how to defend and assert their rights. Next, people need to be willing to stand up to the illegal actions of government. This is where knowledge of the Constitution is critical. It's not enough to say, "This is wrong!", you need to be able to both write and articulate an evidence based argument for why you are correct. What you will stand for and how far you will push it is a personal decision, but if the people will not stand for something, they will fall for anything. Last, stop focusing on Washington, D.C. As an individual, you have almost no influence on the United States, however, you have great influence over local governments. That may not sound like it would be much help, but consider this... If you and your neighbors train you local politicians in the Constitution and the duty they have to their oath, they are more likely to carry those ideas into state government. More importantly, if you're local government, especially your Sheriff, will defend your rights, it will be easier to live free in a sea of tyranny.

@LuckyCharmsMiniFarms Interesting situation in PA. But while the landowners may own the land, who built the road upon the right of way?

I appreciate your comment. As I hope you have noticed, this is a discussion between the varying ideas around the question.

Try walking or taking the bus, neither of which require possession of a driver's licence.

you are free to grow your own, raise livestock, hunt an fish.

@mitchellmelton5132 The question is, is driver, or even operating a motor vehicle on public roads a right? Does government, as the owner and maintainer of the public road, have the authority to regulate the use of those roads?

The first question I would as is where you find your "right to not identify"? I hadn't really thought about license plates and vehicle registration, but that is an interesting thought. What is the legitimate government purpose of having identification displayed on a vehicle? How is it necessary for the safety of society? What about our right to be protected against unreasonable searches? Since those laws are passed at the state level, our state constitutions are the place we should start. I would focus on the civil liberty aspect. Civil liberty is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. -- Webster's 1828 Dictionary

@@TheConstitutionStudy Thank you for the reply. Well the issue here isn't as much the safety of the people as it is the right of the government to enforce laws of safety on their private property. The arguments to support license plates as a safety matter aren't difficult to come up with but it gets tricky when you try and enforce it on a free individual who isn't involved in any crime. These days cop cars just go around automatically capturing every plate around and putting it into a database which is very helpful for catching criminals but puts us all under surveillance, things we think happen only in communist countries. Needless to mention cops aren't the only ones who can get to our information through the identification we are forced to carry. The right to not identify is my right to not be forced into anything. No? I'm not as educated on law. The only legitimate excuse for a cop to demand to see ID for example is if there's a reasonable crime suspicion. And then comes the argument regarding driving. If it's a privilege they can make whatever conditions they want but if it's a right every individual should be able to do as he pleases as long as there's no concrete suspicion of a crime. Yet in reality the act of driving without a display of identification is considered a crime on its own. Wouldn't you agree?

They don't force you, we all do it voluntarily.

If you are a driver at a traffic stop, you do not have a right to not identify. The legislatures in nearly every state have been dealing with this nonsense for decades. There are clear laws that state that you must present your driver's license to police when stopped. You must also identify yourself if you are a suspect. You also can be searched and your vehicle can be searched if the officer has probable cause. In addition, the officers do not need your consent to arrest you. They can order you to get out of your car. In fact, almost everything that these sovereign citizen types think is their right, is not a right. That is why they get their windows broken and thrown in jail. Unfortunately, the courts give them slaps on the wrist, and these people never learn.

@@TheAstilesus Hello, the key sentence of your post is "if you are a driver at a traffic stop" the trick is what is a driver? The law says a driver if a motor vehicle is required to have a license. It does not say anyone in an automobile is required to have a license. The trick is you believe a motor vehicle and an automobile is the same thing. This is not true. Because if it were true why the need for 2 different words? All laws use the word motor vehicle. Why? Why didn't they use the common word we all use automobile? Did you buy your motor vehicle at the motor vehicle dealership? Do you go to the motor vehicle parts store? Do you take it to the motor vehicle wash to clean it? Motor vehicle and automobile is NOT the same thing, that's the trick. A driver is a JOB. Prove me wrong. You have seen it your whole life "HELP WANTED, DRIVER " = JOB

Since public property is owned by the public, you cannot be trespassed on property you partly own.

Please give me a note of where to look for this, it is critical to my wellbeing, thank you

@alexwelts2553 Since drivers license requirements are state law, not federal, they have nothing to do with post roads, which are created and maintained by Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 7.

Government is those who We the People choose to exercise our power. That is what it means to be a republic.

@larrynaron8957 Where do you find the definition of "motor vehicle" being commercial? The phrase is not defined in Black's Law Dictionary and the definition of "vehicle" does is not commercial (dictionary.thelaw.com/vehicle/).

No, "drive", "driver", "motor vehicle", etc., are not commercial terms. Every State has laws regulating the operation of automobiles and other motor vehicles on the public roads, including laws requiring driver's licenses, vehicle registration, and proof of financial responsibility (including the non-commercial use of automobiles or other motor vehicles on the public roads). Applicable definitions of "drive", "driver", or "motor vehicle" are found in state law, for example: [A] Alabama -- AL Code § 32-1-1.1(14): "DRIVER. Every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle." AL Code § 32-1-1.1(32): "MOTOR VEHICLE. Every vehicle which is self-propelled and every vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails, except for electric personal assistive mobility devices." [B] Arizona -- ARS 28-101-21: " ' Drive' means to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle." ARS 28-101-22: " 'Driver' means a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle." ARS 28-101-41: " 'Motor vehicle' : (a) Means either: (i) A self-propelled vehicle. (ii) For the purposes of the laws relating to the imposition of a tax on motor vehicle fuel, a vehicle that is operated on the highways of this state and that is propelled by the use of motor vehicle fuel." [C] Florida -- FL Stat § 322.01(16): " 'Drive' means to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle in any place open to the general public for purposes of vehicular traffic." FL Stat § 322.01(27): " 'Motor vehicle' means any self-propelled vehicle, including a motor vehicle combination, not operated upon rails or guideway, excluding vehicles moved solely by human power, motorized wheelchairs, and motorized bicycles as defined in s. 316.003." [D] California -- Vehicle Code 305: " A “driver” is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. The term “driver” does not include the tillerman or other person who, in an auxiliary capacity, assists the driver in the steering or operation of any articulated firefighting apparatus." Vehicle Code 415: " (a) A “motor vehicle” is a vehicle that is self-propelled. (b) “Motor vehicle” does not include a self-propelled wheelchair, motorized tricycle, or motorized quadricycle, if operated by a person who, by reason of physical disability, is otherwise unable to move about as a pedestrian. (c) For purposes of Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 3000) of Division 2, “motor vehicle” includes a recreational vehicle as that term is defined in subdivision (a) of Section 18010 of the Health and Safety Code, but does not include a truck camper." [E] Nothing in any of those definitions limits driving to commercial activity. [F] Other States have similar, statutory definitions which would apply to the enforcement of the State's laws. Furthermore, there's a general rule in law that if a word is not otherwise defined, the word will be understood according to its common meaning. See Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37 (United States Supreme Court, 1979), at 42: “...A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning…”..

@Redacted44 Most tolls roads are not privately owned, at least not where I lived back in New York State. They are state created and owned corporation. So they are still state owned roads. Have you ever seen local police enforce state traffic laws on truly private roads? Driveways, logging roads, etc?

@michaelstanford3123 Public property is not held directly by the people, it's held in trust by a government. That government is responsible for the proper use and maintenance of that property, including roads. The question isn't about the ability to travel on public roads, but to operate a motor vehicle. There are many ways to travel on public roads, and do not require a license. Only the operation of a motor vehicle requires a license.

But none of that is true. If one posts something as true, it’s his burden to support that claim with verifiable, credible evidence or legal authority. Saying something doesn’t make it true, and no one has to believe unsupported statements. If one doesn't support his statements with verifiable, credible evidence or legal authority, it's appropriate to reject those statements as untrue. So none of that is true. For example, every State has laws regulating the operation of automobiles and other motor vehicles on the public roads, including laws requiring driver's licenses, vehicle registration, and proof of financial responsibility (including the non-commercial use of automobiles or other motor vehicles on the public roads). Applicable definitions of "drive", "driver", or "motor vehicle" are found in state law, for example: [A] Alabama -- AL Code § 32-1-1.1(14): "DRIVER. Every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle." AL Code § 32-1-1.1(32): "MOTOR VEHICLE. Every vehicle which is self-propelled and every vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails, except for electric personal assistive mobility devices." [B] Arizona -- ARS 28-101-21: " ' Drive' means to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle." ARS 28-101-22: " 'Driver' means a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle." ARS 28-101-41: " 'Motor vehicle' : (a) Means either: (i) A self-propelled vehicle. (ii) For the purposes of the laws relating to the imposition of a tax on motor vehicle fuel, a vehicle that is operated on the highways of this state and that is propelled by the use of motor vehicle fuel." [C] Florida -- FL Stat § 322.01(16): " 'Drive' means to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle in any place open to the general public for purposes of vehicular traffic." FL Stat § 322.01(27): " 'Motor vehicle' means any self-propelled vehicle, including a motor vehicle combination, not operated upon rails or guideway, excluding vehicles moved solely by human power, motorized wheelchairs, and motorized bicycles as defined in s. 316.003." [D] California -- Vehicle Code 305: " A “driver” is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. The term “driver” does not include the tillerman or other person who, in an auxiliary capacity, assists the driver in the steering or operation of any articulated firefighting apparatus." Vehicle Code 415: " (a) A “motor vehicle” is a vehicle that is self-propelled. (b) “Motor vehicle” does not include a self-propelled wheelchair, motorized tricycle, or motorized quadricycle, if operated by a person who, by reason of physical disability, is otherwise unable to move about as a pedestrian. (c) For purposes of Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 3000) of Division 2, “motor vehicle” includes a recreational vehicle as that term is defined in subdivision (a) of Section 18010 of the Health and Safety Code, but does not include a truck camper." [E] Nothing in any of those definitions limits driving to commercial activity. [F] Other States have similar, statutory definitions which would apply to the enforcement of the State's laws. Furthermore, there's a general rule in law that if a word is not otherwise defined, the word will be understood according to its common meaning. See Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37 (United States Supreme Court, 1979), at 42: “...A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning…”.. And since an automobile is a self propelled vehicle, it's a type of motor vehicle under those definitions.

@goblinzl1 You do not pay for the roads individually, but collectively, so why shouldn't the collective, via government, regulate how and under what conditions they can be used?

@@TheConstitutionStudy to an extent I agree but travelling shouldn't require a piece of plastic and metal to use roads we pay for

@goblinzl1 But you don't need a piece of plastic to travel, only to operate a motor vehicle on public roads.

​@@TheConstitutionStudy not operate. travel. operating is for commerce. you can travel in your own vehicle freely without needing paperwork and documentation. thats my understanding and its held up on roadside pirate stops.

@goblinzl1 Your drivers license is to operate a motor vehicle, you can travel in one all you want without the state requiring a license. Yes the legal definition of "driver" is for commercial purposes, but that is not what the state requires a drivers license for.

@Redacted44 I don't remember mentioning the rotary club.

@eliudlopez2137 The government is created by people, and according to the Declaration of Independence, only has legitimate power by the consent of those governed. Yes, the government owns property, but they do so in trust for the public.

And the people in every state have chosen to require you to possess a driver's licence and to register your automobile. The public roads are not your personal property to use however you wish. If you want to use public roads and do not have the required licence for using an automobile, try riding a bike or taking the bus. You could even try walking.

@dunteesilver6607 Show me the bill of sale for the road outside your home. The roads are public, but they are owned by the government and held in trust for the public. The government built them and the government maintains them. While driving is a legal term for a type of commerce, states require a license for the operation of a motor vehicle on public roads. If that is a violation of your rights you need to provide evidence.

@quantumenergysolutions9128 Driving under the influence is a documented danger to public safety. The fact that a few, and I would guess a very small few, may have more tolerance does not change the fact that alcohol decreases the skill necessary to operate a 2-ton death machine, thereby making them an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to others. The question I think we should be asking is, how do we determine and enforce impairment laws.

How does the right to operate a motor vehicle a privilege compared to the right to the liberty of travel?

@cathymcmahan7530 "The government only has the right to regulate commerce." Read the Constitution of your state and the United States and you'll see different governments can regulate different things. While the United States can only regulate interstate commerce, the federal government doesn't issue drivers licenses. While often called "drivers licenses", these are actually "operator licenses". Which brings me back to the question, do state governments have the right to regulate the operation of potentially deadly vehicles on public roads for the purpose of public safety?

@@TheConstitutionStudy The federal government regulates intrastate as well. All 50 states adopted the Transportaion code because we have commercial traffic that runs through all 50 states. The governments job is to secure our rights, and as long as we cause no harm to another man or woman they have no right to bother us. Contracts are what cause most of the court cases. We sign many contracts we never read. In business law we learned this. A crime has to have an injured party, we all should know this. A court has to have a controversy. But we are bound by our contracts and we can't be forced to contract but that is what we have today.

@cathymcmahan7530 "The federal government regulates intrastate as well. All 50 states adopted the Transportaion code because we have commercial traffic that runs through all 50 states." Except the federal government is NOT authorized to regulate traffic (Tenth Amendment) or to collect taxes for such purpose (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1). What you describe is the states accepting bribes from the federal government. States are not REQUIRED to follow federal traffic regulations, they just don't want to give up the filth lucre. "The governments job is to secure our rights, " Correct, protect our rights, not regulate our lives.

@@TheConstitutionStudy I said that truckers and others go all over, I was a truck driver and had to know Title 49, and all that stuff.

@@TheConstitutionStudy Right, as long as we harm no one they have no business bothering us. And if we have an issue with someone we can deal with it as well. I have watched over the years where they are trying to control everything and it is wrong. They regulate commerce, same with the states. The states adopted the transportation code so we all get supplies. The issue is they started telling us we all had to have a this to travel from one place to another. They make millions of dollars off of us, so I see why they don't want to follow the law they wrote.

@mtpatriot1776 "The public owns the road." Based on what? Governments built most of the roads. Yes, the uses public money, but that only means that the government owns what they built in trust for the people.

@Don-sx5xv "Taxes are and remain a voluntary action. " That statement is patently false. If you are referring to Florida v United States the opinion stated “Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint.” "Distraint" is defined as "to seize by distress" (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distraining) The government doesn't come knocking at your door to collect taxes, people assess and pay their income taxes voluntarily. That does not mean there is not a penalty for failure to pay said taxes. "The Constitution is your collective agreement as an employee in your government corporation." Another falsehood. The Constitution created the federal government. For your fast food analogy to be correct, the employees at McDonalds would have to have created the restaurant before they were employees.

@@TheConstitutionStudy The problem with our Constitutional Law friends is that they examine Law only through the eyes of the Constitution, which is a relatively weak document of Law and is intended for the citizens of America, Not men and women of America. There are several mechanisms of law that support my thesis, including domestic law, International Law, British Law. You are arguing your case only using Statutory Law which is a set of laws primarily used to govern the citizens, residents, persons etc. You say patently false. Not true, I have been practicing this thesis for over 20 years and have never visited a court room, nor will I ever. Nor am I bound by law to do so. Nothing but a den of thieves and tyrants. This is fact

@Don-sx5xv Actually I argue from supreme law of the land, the Constitution: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." -- Article VI, Clause 2 This clause alone shows not only the importance of the Constitution, but its strength as well.

@Dshatila1983 While that is legally true, "driving" is not always used to refer to a commercial act. Driving your child to school is not a commercial act, neither is it merely "traveling". The question is, do states have the legal authority to regulate the operation of motor vehicles on public roads for the purpose of public safety?

Contracting with the government has nothng to do with it. As the U. S. Supreme Court has ruled, Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565 (U. S. Supreme Court,1877), at 722 (emphasis added): "... The several States of the Union are not, it is true, in every respect independent, many of the right and powers which originally belonged to them being now vested in the government created by the Constitution. But, except as restrained and limited by that instrument, they possess and exercise the authority of independent States, and the principles of public law to which we have referred are applicable to them. One of these principles is, that EVERY STATE POSSESS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION AND SOVEREIGNTY OVER PERSONS AND PROPERTY WITHIN ITS TERRITORY...."

@UnitedArmsOrganization "What if I don’t contract with the government?" Unless you are hired to provide some work or service to a government, you do not contract with them. As a citizen or resident, the question is, are we bound to laws created by others. The short answer is, yes as long as the laws are legally binding. In the U.S. that means that the laws are pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, and in the case of state and local laws, their state constitution as well.

If you have to sign a DL to make it legally binding then it is a contract. No signature, no contract when the contract is written. Verbal contracts do not require a signature.

@@fgoindarkg: Contracts have nothing to do with this.

@@fiddletown2002 There are 2 questions in the OP, both pertain to contracts. Your response is ignorant

@quantumenergysolutions9128 The difference between an ultralight, bicycle, or horse and an automobile is the scale of public safety involved. Very few people are injured and killed by people flying an ultralight, or riding a bicycle or horse. Compare that to the number of people injured and killed every year in motor vehicle incidents.

@claybowcutt6158 Except states don't license travel, but the operation of a motor vehicle whether for commercial purposes or not.

@@TheConstitutionStudy true, but the state applies barriers which is the same thing, Sales tax is indeed a tax imposed on the sale of goods and services, typically by state and local governments within the United States. While it is ultimately paid by the consumer at the point of sale, it is technically a tax on the seller for the privilege of conducting business within the jurisdiction. The State tax on travel can be returned if desired, But a sales tax is actually an inflated price covering the business tax expense. In actuality commerce uses this method so your dollars earned are not taxed twice, hence the tax write-off. States attempt to use the same mythology on travel. I pay to have road frontage paved yet everyone is free to use it. Commerce has the burdon to maintain roads not a private citizen unless its connected to their property.

@claybowcutt6158 No, it is not the same thing. When law enforcement makes a traffic stop they do not ask for the licenses of everyone in the vehicle, only the driver. They may ask for identification, but they are not required to hold a license to travel.

@@TheConstitutionStudy i don't have the right to do harm, traveling using a motorized vehicle is the safest form of travel on public byways

@claybowcutt6158 And what does that have to do with licensing motor vehicle operators? It's not like doing so is free from possible harm. What evidence do you have that "using a motorized vehicle is the safest form of travel on public byways"?

No, and there's no need to be racist about it. And most people do not operate a two ton machine at 60 MPH on a sidewalk either.

@tobiasdemilt9572 Roads are built and held in trust by the government.

Paid for by the people

@richarddelessio What evidence do you have that the government is a corporation?

@patrickhunsaker5427 Actually, I've been seeking people's opinion on the subject. Yes, traveling is a right, but the question is about operating (a better term for what is licensed) a motor vehicle. Can it be licensed for public safety?

travelling in that context means you can't be prevented from entering or leaving a jurisdiction. It does not involve the mode of travel. If 6 people are travelling in an auto, only one is driving; the other 5 are passengers and are travelling. The driver is travelling and is driving to get to his destinationn

The tags are not required for your personal property, but to operate it on public roads. Is that a legitimate function of government? That would depend on your state's constitution.

@msheart2 We're not talking about simple movement, but the operation of a motor vehicle on public roads.

@Danm9077 While a driver is legally defined as a commercial position, most states issue drivers licenses for operating a motor vehicle, which is not the same as travel.

You would be wrong and apparently do not comprehend what is meant by the word _nobility._

@blackprince7510 Simply claiming I would be wrong doesn't make it so. Things are not always as they seem. I don't derive the meaning of words by the use of Webster's dictionary. We can go back to the Magna Carta if you wish.

@@ImNotHereToArgueFacts Nobody gives a s**t where you wish to obtain your meanings of words. What matters is the meanings of words as used in the current law and the accepted meanings in general usage. Enjoy your fines and possible jail time.

@@blackprince7510 You make a good slave

@lloydarnett-ev1uc "We have the liberty to use the common way!" Why should one individual decide how to use a public road? You want to drive at 100 MPH, someone else thinks it should be limited to 50 MPH, who wins? There's a reason we place public property in trust of government, so everyone gets a say it how it is used. It also provides a mechanism to both create and maintain public property. Since those governments are limited by the constitutions that created them, or at least should be, then those government are limited in their ability to infringe on our right.

So I guess you think that you can tell your creator what he can do.

@lloydarnett-ev1uc "So I guess you think that you can tell your creator what he can do." That's an interesting, if unreasonable assertion. Since no one person created the government of a state, no one person should be able to tell the people who created that government what they can do with the property they have empowered their creation to create. As a group, the people have empowered government to create public roads, and to regulate their use. Why should one person be able to disregard the will of the people who had those roads created for them?

@UnitedArmsOrganization A "state national" is a term used by those who want the privileges of U.S. citizenship without the responsibility. It's a person who has renounced their U.S. citizenship without becoming a citizen of another country. State nationals have voluntarily given up their rights as citizens, such as their right to vote.

State Nationals maintain ALL of their God given rights. U.S. citizens are corporate employees who only have 14th Amendment ‘privileges’. I have no interest in voting for the next CEO of a foreign service corporation masquerading as government.

@baberuth7265 You asked "Is there such a thing as a “State national?” If so what would be there rights?", and I answered you. You seemed to have missed the fact that I referred to them giving up their rights of citizenship, not their human rights. Since there is no private corporation for the United States, your point about voting is meaningless. It does beg the question, if you hate the United States so much, why do you remain here?

voting is fake FACT@@TheConstitutionStudy

So is flying but there are rules (both if you’re a pilot or a passenger) to protect the well-being and rights of others. Same as with drivjng.

The right to travel does not include the right to physically control an automobile on public roads free from laws regulating their use for public safety and order. That include a driver's licence requirement and the US Supreme Court has held the enacting of such laws is a valid exercise of a state's police power under US constitutional law. Just because you don't happen to like a particular law does not make it colour of law. People filed suits alleging a violation of their right to travel by the enforcement of state motor vehicle law. They have had their suits dismissed with prejudice as frivolous.

@Charles-tw3ih "DRIVING IS A PRIVILEGE TRAVELING IS A RIGHT" Why?

As is often the case in life, there are two sides to this question: First, Congress does not have the authority to collect taxes for the creation or maintenance of any roads except post roads, (Article I, Section 8, Clause 7). An argument could be made that part of the function of the Interstate Highway system is for the delivery of mail, but beyond that there are few roads in America that people would consider post roads. As for the second, as Alexis de Tocqueville said "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." States, and anyone for that matter, that accepts money or favors from the federal government which it is not authorized to give is accepting a bribe. Since any law which Congress passes to pay said money that is beyond their authority under the Constitution is illegal, (the Constitution being the supreme law of the land, Article VI, Clause), those officials who accept this illegal money are participating in that illegal act. Sadly, the American people's sense of right and wrong has been so perverted by these constant bribes, not only do they not realize they are selling their liberty for bread and circuses, they actually demand that those in Congress pay for their votes with these bribes. And that is why we focus on helping everyday American read and study the Constitution, to help them and their children to learn to be free.

@@TheConstitutionStudy Sadly, I think the system has been corrupted for so long that I don't know if we can get it back. Even so, I won't give up without a fight! It is my duty as an American Citizen to educate myself and others in order to preserve that which was given to us with blood and sacrifice.

@@TheConstitutionStudy, the bribes are also receipt of stolen goods. Taxation to pay for unconstitutional spending is simply theft under color of "law." Every person who takes welfare dollars, whether state or federal, like medicaid/medicare, social security, obamacare, obama phones, etc. are guilty of criminal receipt of stolen goods. But, they also break the 10th amendment separation of powers, and reject the law of the land. Corporate welfare recipients are likewise guilty. Taxpayers cannot be lawfully held to pay the taxes for these programs. State officials who accept any illegal federal funds perjure their oath of office to uphold the US Constitution. In OK we have a constitutional provision that provides for punishment for just such perjury. Funny, it has never been used. I am looking to change that.

David, the only caveat I would make is, unlike the federal government, the U.S. Constitution does not place restrictions on what states can collect taxes for. While the items you list are illegal for the federal government to run, whether or not a state can legally provide them depends on that state's constitution.

Travel is not the same as operating a motor vehicle. You can travel freely by foot or animal, and in most places by bicycle. But does the public, through their representatives in government, have the authority to regulate the operation of large and dangerous vehicles on these shared roads?

yes,you explained it more simply than i did. travelling freely without bothering anyone shouldnt require proof of anything if you arent causing harm to anyone else using these roads.

@goblinzl1 Again, you don't need a license to travel, only to operate a motor vehicle. Remember, you can walk, ride an animal, ride a bicycle, even travel where someone else is driving without the need for a license.

@@TheConstitutionStudy why would you need a license to travel in an automobile

@@TheConstitutionStudy ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Zhq6y5zmEFo.html

@user-lr9yg4ty2m "In 'John Dalen v. State', it ruled that: “The RIGHT of a citizen to TRAVEL." Except states do not license travel, but the operation of motor vehicles on public land. Do states have the power to regulate such operation for public safety?

travelling in that context means you can't be prevented from entering or leaving a jurisdiction. It does not involve the mode of travel. If 6 people are travelling in an auto, only one is driving; the other 5 are passengers and are travelling as pasengers. The driver is travelling and is driving to get to his destination.

The legal definition of drive, as it relates to automobiles and other motor vehicles, is to physically control its movement by operating its controls. But Wisconsin doesn't actually use the word drive in its statute that requires you to possess a licence when behind the wheel of an automobile or other motor vehicle on public roads. 343.05 (3) Noncommercial vehicles. Except as provided in sub. (4): (a) No person may operate a motor vehicle which is not a commercial motor vehicle upon a highway in this state unless the person possesses a valid operator's license issued to the person by the department which is not revoked, suspended, canceled or expired. (b) No person may operate a motorcycle unless the person possesses a valid operator's license specifically authorizing the operation of motorcycles. (c) No person may operate a moped or motor bicycle unless the person possesses a valid operator's license or a special restricted operator's license issued under s. 343.135 or a restricted license issued under s. 343.08. A license under this paragraph does not authorize operation of a moped or motor bicycle if the license is revoked, suspended, canceled or expired. Definition of operator and operator's licence in Wisconsin law: 340.01 (41) “Operator" means a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. 340.01 (41g) “Operator's license" means the authorization granted to a person by this state, another jurisdiction or certain countries to operate a motor vehicle, including a driver's license, temporary or restricted license or an instruction permit. Wisconsin has required possession of an operator's licence, or whatever you want to call a driving permit, since 1929.

Definition of driver is commercial in the blacks law dictionary gives you the definition. Is everything you wrote and what you recording for Wisconsin every one of those are commercial license. Every word that you use it falls under commercial

@@tomskatteboe8527 Some problems with your comment. Black's Law Dictionary is just that, a dictionary. It is not the law and the definitions found in a copy do *NOT* override those found in the actual law. The definitions found in a law dictionary are derived from the definitions found in the laws and from how words were used in both court decisions and general usage prior to the date of publishing of the particular edition of the dictionary you are using. So if you use one from 1910, like Black's 2nd Ed., you are choosing to ignore over 100 years of laws, court decisions, and changes in general usage. But here a definition of driver taken from a somewhat more recent edition of Black's Law than you have chosen to use: *driver. 1.* A person who steers and propels a vehicle. *2.* A person who herds animals; a drover. - Black's Law, 9th Ed., 2009, p. 569 You will notice no mention of commerce in the definition as necessary to be considered a driver. That would be because most states do not define a driver as someone who drives commercially. Not that it really matters in Wisconsin, the state you mentioned in such a manner as to suggest that is where you live. You are considered an operator in that state and require an operator's licence if you are behind the wheel of an automobile or other motor vehicle to physically control it on public roads - Wisconsin Statutes 343.05 (3). But here are some other definitions found in other state motor vehicle law: *Alabama Code § 32-1.1 (14)* - DRIVER. Every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. *Alaska Statutes § 28.90.990 (9)* - “driver” means a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle *Arizona Revised Statutes 28-101 22* - "Driver" means a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. *Arkansas Code § 27-16-104 (1)* - “Driver” means a person who is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon a highway or who is exercising control over or steering a vehicle being towed by a motor vehicle *California Vehicle Code 305* - A “driver” is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. The term “driver” does not include the tillerman or other person who, in an auxiliary capacity, assists the driver in the steering or operation of any articulated firefighting apparatus. *Colorado Revised Statutes 42-1-102 (27)* - “Driver” means every person, including a minor driver under the age of twenty-one years, who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. *Georgia Code § 40-1-1 14.* - "Driver" means every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. *Idaho Statutes 49-105 (15)* - "Driver" means every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. *Hawaii Revised Statutes § 286-2* - "Driver" means every person who drives, operates, or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle in any place open to the general public for purposes of vehicular traffic or who is exercising control over or steering a vehicle being towed or pushed by a motor vehicle. *Nevada Revised Statutes 483.063* - “Driver” means a person who is in actual physical control of a vehicle upon a highway. *New York Vehicle and Traffic Law S 113* - "Driver. Every person who operates or drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. Whenever the terms "chauffeur" or "operator" or "chauffeur's license" or "operator's license" are used in this chapter, such terms shall be deemed to mean driver and driver's license respectively." *Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, Title 75, § 102* - "Driver." A person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. *Utah Code 53-3-102 (15)(a)* - "Driver" means any person who drives, or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle in any location open to the general public for purposes of vehicular traffic. *Revised Code of Washington 46.04.370* - "Operator or driver" means every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. Not one of these mentions being engaged in commerce as a requirement to be considered a driver and no state has exempted you from its driver's licence law since South Dakota changed its law in 1954. Nobody has won in court against a charge of driving without a valid licence by arguing that a state law requiring possession of a licence may only be enacted to apply to those engaged in commerce. The US Supreme Court has never made such a ruling despite what lie you may have seen on the internet. It actually ruled over 100 years ago that a state has the authority to enact laws requiring licensing of drivers and registration of vehicles as part of the regulation of state roads for public safety and order. It wrote in _Hendrick v. Maryland,_ 235 US 610 (1915) that such authority applies to all users of a states roads, stating that _"[t]his is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states and essential to the preservation of the health, safety and comfort of their citizens”._

Well that's one of six legal dictionaries that all our courts use.

@tomskatteboe8527 While called drivers license, states actually license the operation of motor vehicles. That's part of what has come of the discussion here. Do you have the Article & Section of the Wisconsin Constitution about the ownership of roads? I would be very interested to review it.

@tobiasdemilt9572 Constitutional law is NOT law but the opinion of judges. It did not go through the legislative (lawmaking) process and is not listed in Article VI, Clause 2 as the supreme law of the land.

@jimmyjam593 If you have video evidence of their activity, I suggest you find an attorney. While you may have a case against some of their actions, I don't think you have much of a case for the driving without a license since you were apparently not merely traveling but operating motor vehicle without a license.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ZGdpmncD03Q.htmlsi=2Hc3WdYN9dnSTicL

@austinlance7206 This video is NOT about traveling, but operating a motor vehicle. The state doesn't require a license to travel, but it does require one to operate a motor vehicle.

Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), was an appeal of District Courts' decisions holding unconstitutional Conn., Penn. and D.C statutory provisions which DENIED WELFARE ASSISTANCE to residents who met every eligibility requirement except that they had not resided within the jurisdiction for at least a year prior to applying for assistance. The US Supreme Court upheld the decisions because the ONE-YEAR WAITING PERIOD deterred interstate movement, violating the right to travel, and the WAITING PERIOD also violated the Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment) and Due Process Clause (5th and 14th Amendments). The case has nothing to do with the constitutionality of a driver's licence requirement. The quotation you are attributing to Shapiro v. Thompson does not appear anywhere in the decision.

@blackprince7510 Again, no state licenses travel, only the operation of motor vehicles.

@@TheConstitutionStudy Thanks for stating the obvious. The problem seems to be that some, possibly yourself included, believe saying you are travelling from one place to another means you are not a driver or operator even when found sitting in the driver's seat of an automobile on public roads. If you want to travel and do not possess the licence required by state law in every state of the USA to be behind the wheel of an automobile, find some other means of getting from point A to point B. As long as you are actually engaged in operating the controls of an automobile to make it move and are doing so on public roads, you require a licence.

Interesting point of view, but I would point out that while driver does mean "one that drives" (Merriam-Webster dictionary), that does not necessarily mean for commercial purposes.

@@TheConstitutionStudy Driver means any person who operates any commercial motor vehicle. Pay to drive. Legal meaning dictionary. 49 CF § 390.5

That is a federal regulation, not a law and certainly not the supreme law of the land: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;" -- Article VI, Clause 2 Furthermore, Congress cannot delegate the power to define "driver" to the executive branch since they were not delegated that power under the Constitution.

@@aanvaardig5770: Except -- [I] The courts have consistently ruled that the constitutionally protected right to travel does not include a right to operate an automobile or other motor vehicle without complying with state laws requiring driver's licenses, car registration and/or proof of financial responsibility. [A] City of Mt. Vernon v. Young, 2006 Ohio 3319 (Ohio App., 2006), slip op. at 14: "...'Driving a motor vehicle on a public roadway is only one form of travel. [the requirement for a valid driver's license] does not prevent Appellant from engaging in interstate or intrastate travel by walking, running, taking a bus, a train, a bicycle or an airplane. Appellant is free to go anywhere he wishes. He is merely restricted to do so by utilizing forms of travel in which he is not the driver of a motor vehicle' State v. Stuber, Third Dist. No. 1-02-13, 2002-Ohio-3394 at ¶11...." [B] State v. Garvin, 945 A.2d 821 (R.I., 2008), at 823: "..."... defendant does not have a fundamental right to unregulated travel by automobile within this state. "[T]his [C]ourt has expressly ruled that the right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways is not a fundamental right." Allard v. Department of Transportation, 609 A.2d 930, 937 (R.I.1992) (citing Berberian v. Petit, 118 R.I. 448, 455 n. 9, 374 A.2d 791, 794 n. 9 (1977))...." [C] City of Spokane v. Port, 716 P.2d 945, 43 Wn.App. 273 (Wash. App., 1986) at 276: "...the right to a particular mode of travel is no more than an aspect of the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 3 See Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33, 62 S.Ct. 24, 86 L.Ed. 21 (1941). In Reitz, the United States Supreme Court examined the privilege to travel on our public streets and highways and concluded, at 314 U.S. 36, 62 S.Ct. 26-27: "...Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process...." [D] State v. Skurdal, 767 P.2d 304, 235 Mont. 291 (Mont. Supreme Court, 1988), at 307: "...one's ability to travel on public highways is always subject to reasonable regulation by the state in the valid exercise of its police power.Gordon v. State (1985), 108 Idaho 178, 697 P.2d 1192, 1193, appeal dismissed, 474 U.S. 803, 106 S.Ct. 874, 88 L.Ed.2d 912 (1986)...." [II] And in fact, the U. S. Supreme Court has EXPRESSLY RULED THAT IT IS WITHIN THE POWER OF STATES, AND CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE, to enact laws requiring driver's licenses, motor vehicle registration, and proof of financial responsibility for any operation of an automobile or other motor vehicle on public roads (without regard to whether that operation is, or is not, commercial): [A] As a matter of constitutional law it is permissible for States to require driver's licenses, and/or vehicle registration for the operation of automobiles and other motor vehicles on public roads. See John Hendrick v. State of Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 35 S.Ct. 140, 59 L.Ed. 385 (1915), at 622 (emphasis added): "...a state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of ALL motor vehicles,-those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. And to this end it may require the registration of such vehicles and the licensing of their drivers, charging therefor reasonable fees graduated according to the horse-power of the engines,-a practical measure of size, speed, and difficulty of control. This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states..." [B] As a matter of constitutional law it is permissible for States to require proof of financial responsibility for the operation of automobiles and other motor vehicles on public roads. See Frank Kane v. State of New Jersey, 242 U.S. 160, 37 S.Ct. 30, 61 L.Ed. 222 (1916). at 167: "...The power of a state to regulate the use of motor vehicles on its highways has been recently considered by this court and broadly sustained. It extends to nonresidents as well as to residents...." [C] As a matter of constitutional law it is permissible for States to require driver's licenses, and/or vehicle registration for the operation of automobiles and other motor vehicles on public roads. Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33, 62 S.Ct. 24, 86 L.Ed. 21 (1941), at 36 (emphasis added): "....The UNIVERSAL practice is to register ownership of automobiles and to license their drivers. Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process....." [III] No one has been able to cite a Supreme Court case which expressly ruled (1) that any right to travel includes a right to use an automobile or other motor vehicle (non-commercially) on public roads without satisfying state laws requiring a driver's license, vehicle registration, or proof of financial responsibility; or (2) precludes States from regulating the non-commercial operation of an automobile or other motor vehicle.

@whoareacts But states don't license traveling, they license the operation of a motor vehicle. Yes, they call them "driver's licenses", but what the license is operating a potentially dangerous vehicle.

The right to the pursuit of happiness is not the right to be happy. That a law requiring you to possess a driver's licence makes you unhappy does not mean that law is unconstitutional.

@liamgio795 What you say is true. The question at hand is, do state governments have the authority to regulate the operation of motor vehicles on those roads, and if so why?

@@TheConstitutionStudy they can only regulate, “motor vehicle EQUIPMENT”. I like the word “PROPERTY” instead of the word of art legal term, “motor vehicle” whatever that is?

@@TheConstitutionStudy State Driver’s licensing is too intrusive, too expensive and too burdensome on the general public and it doesn’t prove mental and physical competency, but a one time competency examination “certification” issued by the state would be a much better device to protect the state’s interest in public safety, but there is little money in that?

@liamgio795 But a drivers license isn't a regulation of equipment but an authorization for people to operate a vehicle on public roads.

@liamgio795 The fact that you think it is not too expensive or intrusive doesn't mean the state has the authority to require them.

Neither of your assertions regarding the meaning of words are actually correct. The regulation of the use of state roads falls under state authority and every state has chosen to regulate the use of their roads by all users, commercial and non-commercial, by requiring licences and vehicle registration. No doubt you will cite the likes of 18 USC § 31 as if it has something to do with the regulation of the use of automobiles and other motor vehicles. But the definitions found in that section are meant for use in the chapter in which they are found as clearly indicated by the words "In this chapter, the following definitions apply". Chapter 2 of Title 18 is concerned with describing FEDERAL crimes committed against aircraft, motor vehicles, and their related facilities engaged in INTERSTATE COMMERCE. The argument that only commercial use of automobiles and other vehicles may be regulated has been repeatedly rejected by the courts. So has the argument that licensing of non-commercial drivers and the registration of their automobiles somehow violates the right to travel. Nothing is preventing you from travelling from point a to point b by other means if you cannot obtain, refuse to obtain, or have had revoked/suspended a licence to physically control an automobile on public roads. Try walking or catching a bus.

@@blackprince7510 is your car considered home goods/private property? You also have US code title 49 and US code title 34.... that says it is voluntary to have plates and symbols relating to registration Title 18 of the US code has to deal with all manner of crime.. so yes it does apply in relation to registration

@@epsteinsghost7247 Whether or not your automobile can be considered household goods under some circumstances or that it is your private property is completely irrelevant to the authority of a state to require you to possess a licence and register that automobile in order to use it on public roads. The public roads are not your personal property to use as you choose with no regard for laws regulating their use for public safety and order. Nothing in Titles 49, 34, or 18 overrides state authority to require you to possess a valid driver's licence or to register an automobile prior to using it on public roads. The courts have consistently rejected the arguments that licensing and registration violate your right to travel or that such laws may only apply to those engaged in commercial use of an automobile.

@blackprince7510 courts are wrong Title 49 exclusively states voluntary and there's case law that states you do not need to register or license private property Also the supremacy clause of the US constitution clearly asserts that if the state laws and fed laws are in contention fed takes precedence and that's from everything from definition to actual law

@@epsteinsghost7247 LOL. Sorry but your personal opinion does not override the decisions of the numerous state and federal courts that have rejected the nonsense you are peddling. The supremacy clause applies to those legislative powers granted to Congress by the US Constitution. The powers of Congress found in Article One, Sec. 8 do not include any authority to regulate the use of state roads for non-commercial purposes. You might want to try reading the 10th Amendment and your state's laws governing the use of motor vehicles, which includes automobiles, on its roads. There is no conflict between federal and state law when it comes to state regulation of your use of an automobile. The US Supreme Court ruled over 100 years in its decision of _Hendrick v, Maryland,_ 235 US 610 (1915) that a state has the legislative authority to enact laws regulating the use of its roads, including licensing of drivers and registration of vehicles, and that this authority applies to *ALL* users of a state's roads. It wrote that _"[t]his is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states and essential to the preservation of the health, safety and comfort of their citizens”._ So get a licence before you get behind the wheel of an automobile on public roads or face the possibility of being fined to the tune of hundreds of dollars if caught.

@Charles3rddd What do you base that position on?

@@TheConstitutionStudy Unlike firearms, which frankly haven't changed much since origin, trying to compare a car to a horse or horse & buggy etc etc, is like trying to compare a butterfly to a supernova. As much as I absolutely LOATHE to say it, there is an actual need for a safety certificate, which at the end of the day is all a license is, however, that could easily be issued by a private company instead of the state. The licensing center in my area of the world is horribly run but of course, it's gov't run so go figure. I'd personally prefer it be handled by a private entitiy.

@Charles3rddd That makes sense. The question I would have is, if the issuance of licenses was handled by a private company, who determines the standards both for issuing the license and revoking the license?

@@TheConstitutionStudy the private company would follow regulations set down by the government agency that awarded them the contract. 50 states require a license

@@TheConstitutionStudy DAmn if that isn't a question. We've got some levels of gov't in different states thinking that people are different sexes just because they claim they are. I'd say the gov't is left out of it entirely and that licenses can't be revoked at all by any gov't entity. i'd also backtrack a bit and say that it isn't a privilege, that it's a skill, and once you've proven that you're adequate to the task, that the issue of revoking is gone, certainly not for failure to pay tickets, it would have to be something drastic.