Would you have a bird if...

Palmpilot said:
On this subject, it's fortunate that it's not up to the states. In Shapiro v. Thompson, when the Supreme Court summarized previous rulings in various cases, they quoted many precedents that referred to a right to travel, and they concluded that

"This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement."​

Shapiro v. Thompson

I'm not an attorney, but I think that most people recognize that testing drivers (and pilots) for competence, and requiring them to obey properly adopted laws and regulations, are reasonable. Consequently, I think driving and piloting easily fit within the scope of what the Court was talking about above.

Whether you prefer to call travel a right or a privilege, if the government made decisions about who may drive a car or pilot an airplane that were sufficiently arbitrary for the Court to recognize them as unreasonable, my bet is that they would have no trouble invalidating them under precedents like the one quoted above.

Calling things "privileges," especially things that are as basic to modern life as driving, makes me nervous, because I think it's an invitation to arbitrary government.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you say, except I think that the difference between "right" and "privilege" in this context is semantic. I think the states' definition of privilege for driving (or the FAA in the case of flying) is equivalent to "a right with reasonable restrictions". And as you imply, those restrictions involve passing a driver/pilot test applicable to the vehicle you drive/pilot, obeying the rules of the road/air, etc.
The reason they emphasize the difference between right and privilege is because in our culture we like to think of "right" as something that can't be taken away from us, so it's easier for them to call it "privilege" to emphasize that if you don't play by the rules, we take away your ball.
 
Kritchlow said:
I read that before I posted. I also found counter opinions saying the "right to travel" is NOT a "right to drive".
Click to expand...

Whichever term you prefer, I hope we can agree that who gets to drive, act as a pilot, etc., should be based on statutes and regulations that are reasonable and necessary, rather than on the whims of people in power.
 
Palmpilot said:
Whichever term you prefer, I hope we can agree that who gets to drive, act as a pilot, etc., should be based on statutes and regulations that are reasonable and necessary, rather than on the whims of people in power.
Click to expand...

We certainly can agree...
 
RotorDude said:
...The reason they emphasize the difference between right and privilege is because in our culture we like to think of "right" as something that can't be taken away from us, so it's easier for them to call it "privilege" to emphasize that if you don't play by the rules, we take away your ball.
Click to expand...

I can see that concern, although I think it is misplaced, because not even the rights explicitly recognized as such in the Bill of Rights are considered by the courts to be absolute. Even freedoms of speech and the press have limits that are generally recognized as just. Examples include prohibitions on shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, libel and slander laws, copyright law, inciting to riot, etc. That doesn't mean we call it the "Bill of Privileges."
 
Palmpilot said:
I can see that concern, although I think it is misplaced, because not even the rights explicitly recognized as such in the Bill of Rights are considered by the courts to be absolute. Even freedoms of speech and the press have limits that are generally recognized as just. Examples include prohibitions on shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, libel and slander laws, copyright law, inciting to riot, etc. That doesn't mean we call it the "Bill of Privileges."
Click to expand...

Again I agree, but I think it has to do with practicality. The state DMV employees have a much easier time explaining to the masses they deal with on a daily basis that driving is a "privilege", than a "right with reasonable restrictions". IOW, by just giving it a different name, they make their work easier, and nobody is going to sue them for using the wrong term.
 
RotorDude said:
Again I agree, but I think it has to do with practicality. The state DMV employees have a much easier time explaining to the masses they deal with on a daily basis that driving is a "privilege", than a "right with reasonable restrictions". IOW, by just giving it a different name, they make their work easier, and nobody is going to sue them for using the wrong term.
Click to expand...

As long as the people at the DMV are following the rules, I'm more concerned with the thought processes of those who are WRITING the rules.
 
Palmpilot said:
As long as the people at the DMV are following the rules, I'm more concerned with the thought processes of those who are WRITING the rules.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is any evidence of a problem, like prohibiting a class of people from driving. If anything, you see some DMVs letting illegal immigrants (whatever the PC term is) get driver's licenses, so the pendulum is definitely not on the restrictive side. Aviation is trickier, but even there the only issue I see is an argument over what's "reasonable", e.g. medical standards or rule enforcement. I guess you could argue that age limits in commercial operations is a discriminatory rule against a class, but one could easily reply that it's a "medical" (and hence reasonable) issue, even with flimsy evidence. And of course commercial operation is expected to have more restrictive rules.
 
Since it isn't a problem for me I would have no problem with it.
 
Why not. When I hand them the cup for testing and they look at me funny I will just say " you want urine in there, sorry that's what came out of the nozzle ".
 
Fill it above the brim so when they handle it....
 
RotorDude said:
I don't think there is any evidence of a problem, like prohibiting a class of people from driving. If anything, you see some DMVs letting illegal immigrants (whatever the PC term is) get driver's licenses, so the pendulum is definitely not on the restrictive side. Aviation is trickier, but even there the only issue I see is an argument over what's "reasonable", e.g. medical standards or rule enforcement. I guess you could argue that age limits in commercial operations is a discriminatory rule against a class, but one could easily reply that it's a "medical" (and hence reasonable) issue, even with flimsy evidence. And of course commercial operation is expected to have more restrictive rules.
Click to expand...

I will admit that my concern over terminology is, so far, more theoretical than real.

By the way, even though I am liberal on some issues, I despise the term "undocumented," and think it is nothing short of a lie. Someone who doesn't have ID is undocumented. Someone who immigrates illegally is an illegal immigrant.
 
Kritchlow said:
The Feds mandated a random drug testing (NO cost to you) on Private Pilots? Throw in random alcohol checks at FBO's.

ETA: I'm not saying this should or should not be done. I'm just thinking it may be a possibility in the future. Who knows??
Click to expand...

How about free!! random drug testing on motorists? And throw in random alcohol checks at the Speedway?
 
Kritchlow said:
Every state I've lived in has stressed: Driving is not a right. It's a privlidge.
Click to expand...

In many states the right to keep and bear arms is treated as a privilege.
 
paflyer said:
How about free!! random drug testing on motorists? And throw in random alcohol checks at the Speedway?
Click to expand...

Not sure about the drug tests, but the breathalyzer sure comes into play.
 
Kritchlow said:
Yeah right.... Been there done that too many times. Probable cause is a male driving on a weekend night.
Click to expand...

Hey, it saved the former FAA administrator from a conviction.

Didn't save his job, though.
 
Kritchlow said:
Every state I've lived in has stressed: Driving is not a right. It's a privlidge.
Click to expand...

They can paint it pink and call it Mary; but at the end of the day, the DMV can't deny you a license to drive without cause, and the burden is on the state to show the decision to you deny has merit, and isn't caprcious or arbitrary. Or a judge is going to be very cross.

You aren't asking permission to drive, and tbe DMV (and FAA) are obligated to issue the license, if you meet the standard for qualification - which is, basically, the same for everyone. They, the DMV & FAA, don't have a choice in the matter ; they have the obligation to perform their mandates.

So, you can split hairs on calling it a previlige versus a right, but fir oractical purposes, it seems to be a right to me.
 
FINALLY, I'm glad SOMEONE agrees with me! :thumbsup: :cheerswine:
 
Sundancer said:
They can paint it pink and call it Mary; but at the end of the day, the DMV can't deny you a license to drive without cause, and the burden is on the state to show the decision to you deny has merit, and isn't caprcious or arbitrary. Or a judge is going to be very cross.

You aren't asking permission to drive, and tbe DMV (and FAA) are obligated to issue the license, if you meet the standard for qualification - which is, basically, the same for everyone. They, the DMV & FAA, don't have a choice in the matter ; they have the obligation to perform their mandates.

So, you can split hairs on calling it a previlige versus a right, but fir oractical purposes, it seems to be a right to me.
Click to expand...

Without cause... Exactly what is "cause" ?

Voting is a right. Can they pull your voting privlidges because you refuse to say your ABC's before entering the booth?
 
Kritchlow said:
Without cause... Exactly what is "cause" ?

Voting is a right. Can they pull your voting privlidges because you refuse to say your ABC's before entering the booth?
Click to expand...

"Cause" is probably what a court will allow, at the end of the day - easy ones, like you can't be licensed if you're blind. . tougher ones, like you can't be licensed because you wrote a op-ed that blasted the FAA.

Again, the DMV and FAA make rules, not laws. If they push a rule (or denial) that the courts decide conflicts with law, the rule doesn't stand. You hope the rule makers steer within the law, and when they don't, you hope the courts slap 'em. Which they would (I hope), if you were denied the vote for refusing to recite the alphabet.
 
Kritchlow said:
Without cause... Exactly what is "cause" ?

Voting is a right. Can they pull your voting privlidges because you refuse to say your ABC's before entering the booth?
Click to expand...

They pull your voting rights if you're convicted of a felony. Just because something is a right doesn't mean it's absolute.
 
As far as drug testing goes, I don't personally care, but it doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose. Private aviation is supposed to be riskier than commercial aviation, just ask FAA about ride sharing and see if they agree.

As for this...

Palmpilot said:
I can see that concern, although I think it is misplaced, because not even the rights explicitly recognized as such in the Bill of Rights are considered by the courts to be absolute. Even freedoms of speech and the press have limits that are generally recognized as just. Examples include prohibitions on shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, libel and slander laws, copyright law, inciting to riot, etc. That doesn't mean we call it the "Bill of Privileges."
Click to expand...


The majority of the Bill of Rights limits GOVERNMENT not private individual to private individual interaction. The 1st Amendment says you can say whatever you like about our government. It is not "absolute" at all between private parties. I can squelch your freedom of speech in my house, on my websites, wherever I like. Because your freedom of speech is being able to speak against government. Not me. I can toss your butt to the curb and off my property anytime I feel like it.

The vast majority of the BoR is also thus.

Palmpilot said:
They pull your voting rights if you're convicted of a felony. Just because something is a right doesn't mean it's absolute.
Click to expand...


2 States don't pull voting rights at all.

Numerous others return voting rights after time served or time served plus parole.

Only a few places strip your voting rights forever and they've all been seeing an uptick in challenges of that. It's amazingly one area of the law that isn't federally mandated, considering how much Statists adore centralized law on such things.
 
Palmpilot said:
They pull your voting rights if you're convicted of a felony. Just because something is a right doesn't mean it's absolute.
Click to expand...

That's not right. Look at who is running; tell me many of them haven't committed un-prosecuted felonies....
 
This thread really should be titled How much of your time could the feds waste before you stop flying?
 
denverpilot said:
As for this...




The majority of the Bill of Rights limits GOVERNMENT not private individual to private individual interaction. The 1st Amendment says you can say whatever you like about our government. It is not "absolute" at all between private parties. I can squelch your freedom of speech in my house, on my websites, wherever I like. Because your freedom of speech is being able to speak against government. Not me. I can toss your butt to the curb and off my property anytime I feel like it.

The vast majority of the BoR is also thus.
Click to expand...

Similarly, the fact that the FAA has issued you a pilot certificate does not compel an FBO to rent you an aircraft.
 
Mason said:
The majority of the Constitution is a limit on the Federal government.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. The adoption of the Constitution granted the federal government a great deal of power that it didn't have under the Articles of Confederation.
 
paflyer said:
That's not right. Look at who is running; tell me many of them haven't committed un-prosecuted felonies....
Click to expand...

You seem to have overlooked the word "convicted" in my post. Also, I don't think pulling someone's voting rights prevents them from running for office.
 
Palmpilot said:
You seem to have overlooked the word "convicted" in my post. Also, I don't think pulling someone's voting rights prevents them from running for office.
Click to expand...

Or voting....
 
Perhaps, but one is breaking the law, and the other probably isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top