Driver Licensing not about highway safety

On Oct 26, 4:42 am, proffsl wrote:
wrote:
proffsl wrote:
wrote:
proffsl wrote:
"Alohacyberian" wrote:
"proffsl" wrote:
"Alohacyberian" wrote:

Operation of motor vehicles isn't a "right".

The operation of a motor vehicle on public highways is a Right,

Sorry, you don't know the legal meaning of a "right".

Baseless Ad Hominem.

"The Idaho Supreme Court, however, has held that the right to operate
a motor vehicle on public highways is a matter of constitutional
dimension. In Adams v. City of Pocatello , 91 Idaho 99, 101, 416 P.2d
46, 48 (1966), the Court declared that the right to drive "is a right
or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of
the federal and state constitutions. Consequently, the courts of this
state must regard the right to drive a motor vehicle on public
highways as constitutionally protected." - State of Idaho v. Mark
Wilder (2003) -http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/idahostatecases/app/1033/wilder.pdf

You left out the part of the ruling, as you always do, that included
licensing as part of the exercise of the right to travel by auto.

Licensing is not a part of our Right to operate a motor vehicle on
public highways.

Yes it is. I've proven that unquestioningly and irrefutably.

As you have previously acknowledged what I say, you are lying.

I have never lied, unlike you who consistently does so.

I have proven unquestioningly and irrefutably that licensing IS a part
of the ordinary way of operating a motor vehicle on the public
streets. As I proved to you in last year's version of your lost cause,
since 1915 that has been established as legal and constitutional, in
Hendrick. The connection is made and accepted. The only lie is your
continued avoidance of the truth.

Where
the court recognizes the Right to operate motor vehicles on public
highways, Licensing is not mentioned as a part of that Right..

Yes it is. The fact that you pull only one sentence out of a ruling
and misapply it, does not mean that your point is established. It just
means you left during the first inning of the argument and missed the
ball game. The authority to establish a system of licensing and
registration as part of the ordinary way was settled in 1915. You
cannot leave out the rest of the rulings you quote - all of which in
the end supported me and contradicted you. None of the court cases you
cited ever said one single word about invalidating the system of
licensing and registration... none. You lose.

Licensing IS NOT a part of our Right to operate a motor vehicle on
public highways.

Wrong. It is, and it's been formally recognized as such since 1915 in
Hendrick.

Licensing is a part of the police power being
unreasonably imposed upon our Right to operate a motor vehicle on
public highways.

As has been proven, it is not unreasonable at all.

The police power to require Driver Licensing, circumventing our Right
to operate motor vehicles on public highways, serves no purpose to
highway safety that laws against endangerment didn't already serve,
and is therefore unreasonable.

False. That line of reasoning has been litigated and rejected. Here by
your own admission licensing does serve public safety, by which you
contradict your earlier claims. At least you are making progress
slowly toward the truth. I predict by 2009 you will finally grasp it.

It doesn't matter that you can conceive of another way without
licensing that some measure of public safety can also be achieved.
That alone does not make licensing unreasonable or arbitrary at all.
This has been litigated and your position has failed.