[IAMI]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

No million different verdicts and no word games. Whether it's called a Drivers License or an Operators Permit, it's the same thing and steering a motor vehicle onto a public road without one is a serious infraction. Whether you want to quibble about whether an infraction is punished, the simple fact is that the various penalties imposed by traffic courts are not considered penal in the sense of the criminal justice system and the "correctional" system but administrative with a view toward public safety.

As I said before, not a single one of those cases previously cited about the "right to travel" held that someone could steer a car onto the public roads without a DL. No million different verdicts about it.

This is a conclusion I've come to on my own, during the study I've done on the matter of driving without a license. I'm up in Ontario Canada, so many of our laws/statutes/acts/rules aren't as clear cut as the US ones... Now... I'm not saying that I WANT to agree with Shoonra in this case, but what I WANT is irrelevant. IF it's true... then it's true (please no esoteric or philosophical questions on what is "truth"... let's stick to facts in our current material universe ).
In every case that I have read, including the cites listed in this thread and others... I have NOT seen them say you "Do not need to be licensed". I have seen plenty of support for the right to travel. The courts agree... it's a right, and you are free to use the conveyance of your choice. If they said you cannot operate/drive an automobile/motor vehicle then they would be interfering with your rights. But they have ONLY said that your right to travel is a guarantee.
So many cites pointing to court rulings stating that people have the right etc... but look at what they DON'T say!
I have found that many of these cites are used to support the opinion that driving without a license is a right.
Then many other cites are listed that quote that a license is required (including act/statute(s) themselves)... and these are to support the opinion that one is required to have a license to drive a vehicle.
Why the two opposing court rulings?? Or are they REALLY opposing....

It is very tempting to gloss over when reading the cites which state the right to travel.

Can anyone point to a court cite (which states as clear as the ones which point to the right to travel), in which they state that a "License" is NOT required to drive/operate a motor vehicle/automobile?
Or that in exercising said "fundamental right to travel" excludes the requirement for licensing?
I'm not sure there are any... I have not read one before at any rate.

I'm just curious also... at what point would a license be required to operate a vehicle? Would a plane be considered a motor vehicle? Would anyone agree that those who are not licensed should fly airplanes? How about driving trains? (Yes... this is when the license = commercial arguments come in... but it's possible to own one's own plane... or even train for that matter)
Does one need a license to walk? Ride a bike? Run? Ride a horse? Drive/operate/control a horse drawn wagon? Row a canoe?

Now... I have asked these questions before in other forums... and the usual response is "Know who you are" and "why are you agreeing to their rules" and "why are you looking for a remedy in the courts" etc.
Many of these who respond thusly, seem to forget that these rules/acts/statutes/laws are enforced under a might makes right principal.
I agree with the principals and spirit of most trying to get from under the yoke of our overbearing governments, but I cannot afford to leave my family behind while I lounge in jail, get fined to bankruptcy or have my vehicles impounded. None of this licensing issue means anything if the people who are arresting/charging/judging/enforcing against you will not recognize your defense in the situation.

Anyway... ignoring most of the drivel in this post... can someone look at the bold text and provide an answer?

Cheers all!
IAMI