Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Codee
OK you want to see how weak most of these opinions are? (here a quote from Am.Jur. [1st])
|
I made an effort to find a court decision that actually used these words, because you have quoted a legal encyclopedia -- one more than 50 years old at that -- rather than a court decision.
The statement you quoted does not appear in the current edition of Am.Jr.2d. The precise words used 50 years ago appear to be knitted from two court decisions:
Thompson v. Smith (1930) 155 Va 367, 154 SE 579, 71 ALR 604, which did not dispute the statutory requirement of a DL but held that a DL could not be revoked on the mere whim of the town's police chief; and
Ex parte ****ey (1915) 76 W.Va 576, 85 SE 781, LRA-1915F 840, which upheld the authority of a city to require bus companies operating within the city to obtain and pay for business licenses. In particular, the ****ey court said that a citizen's right to travel on the highway was a common right, so that the legislative power over it was one of regulation, while the privilege of operating a business which uses the public roads for private gain is not a common right and may be more severely controlled or even denied. The ****ey case was quoted on this point in
Jewel Tea Co. v. City of Augusta (1938) 59 Ga.App 260, 200 SE 503, which upheld the authority of a city to require a bond and insurance coverage of a delivery truck business.
There have even been some cases in which the defendant driver quoted the very same words you did, but the court held that this did not mean a "right" to drive without a DL (nor prevent the state from revoking DLs of dangerous drivers); e.g.
Hawkins v. State (Texas App Sept 8, 2005);
Escobedo v. State (1950) 35 Cal.2d 870, 222 P2d 1;
Hough v. McCarthy (1960) 54 Cal.2d 273, 353 P2d 276, 5 Cal.Rptr 668; [i]Maxfield v. Corwin[/2] (WD Mich March 17, 1987).
Now, in none of these cases, nor any other that I have found, did a court say that someone may operate a motor vehicle on the public roads without first obtaining a DL.
You mentioned a "Supreme Court" case. The Supreme Court has
repeatedly said that states have the authority - and duty - to require licenses of all drivers (no exception for "noncommercial" ones) to promote public safety. Supreme Court decisions upholding a "right to travel" - usually involving a denial of a passport or a state's discrimination against newcomers -- still did not say that a person has a right to insist on a particular method of travel, much less insist on being the pilot of the vehicle.