Driver Licensing not about highway safety

On Oct 17, 6:02 am, proffsl wrote:
wrote:
proffsl wrote:

Our Right to Drive automobiles (operate motor vehicles)
on our public highways has been recognized:

Indeed, but only with a license. You cannot illogically leave out
this integral part of, as we have shown you repeatedly for 18
months, the ordinary way of conducting or travel by motor vehicle.

Out of some combination of fear, ignorance and maliciousness, you
continually and incorrectly associate licensing with the court's
recognition of our Right "to operate a motor vehicle on public
highways":

You are showing yourself to be a liar again.

You well know in last year's version of this thread, you lost that
battle.

SCOTUS: Hendrick. The courts have lo-o-o-o-ng ago made that
association between licensed drivers and the "ordinary way" of
operating motor vehicles on our public rights of way.

You lose again. But you knew that when you posted your discredited
claim, because you were made well familiar with the Hendrick case last
year.

Licensing and driving on public rights of way are inseparably linked
as the ordinary way and your continual ignoring of that fact is
illegitimate.

"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

Wilder was CONVICTED of driving without a licesne in this cite of
yours, and it was UPHELD on appeal. This case CONTRADCITS your claims,
yet you still cite it only having to shoot it down. This is very
foolish behavior.

Licensing is not any part of the court's recognition of our Right "to
operate a motor vehicle on public highways",

Yes it is, and THE VERY CASE YOU CITE, Wilder, GOES ON TO CONFIRM
THAT.

...but instead Licensing is
subjected upon this Right as a part of a police power:

That, dear friend IS WHAT MAKES them linked. Your inability to grok
this simple truth doesn't make it untrue, it makes you thinker than a
block of cement in understanding the truth.

"The state of Idaho may subject this right to reasonable regulation,
however, in the exercise of its police power. Id.; Gordon v. State,
108 Idaho 178, 179, 697 P.2d 1192, 1193 (Ct. App. 1985). Therefore,
the question before this Court is whether the requirement that one
obtain a driver's license before driving upon the highways and, in the
process, provide one's social security number, is a reasonable
regulation in furtherance of the state's police power." - State of
Idaho v. Mark Wilder (2003) -http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/idahostatecases/app/1033/wilder.pdf

See? I was right, you were wrong.

What a surprise.

All your cites are belong to us!!

Without the imposition of this police power upon our Right "to operate
a motor vehicle on public highways", Licensing would be nonexistent
and not an issue.

So what? Irrelevant to the fact that police power given by the people
to the government under the Constitution IS linked here and since the
time of Hendrick (1915).

You cannot continue to ignore that simple fact that they have been
joined at the hip for nearly a century, by simply denying the truth.

And to that point, the courts recognize a definite
limitation upon the implementation of police powers:

Under the broad authority of the police power, a state legislature may
enact laws concerning the health, safety, and welfare of the people so
long as the regulations are not arbitrary or unreasonable." - State of
Idaho v. Mark Wilder (2003) -http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/idahostatecases/app/1033/wilder.pdf

Irrelevant because, despite your polite disagreement with ALL of the
legal authorities and minds of the past century who have considered,
litigated and ruled upon this very line of reasoning, the fact remains
that licensing has been found to be a reasonable application of police
powers. You lost. You can cry and stomp your feet all you want that it
is not reasonable and is arbitrary, but you are simply incorrect. Your
only explanation for the fact that you are on the losing side is that
there is this great conspiracy you have written about involving tens
of thousands of people across multiple generations in all of the he 50
states to knowingly deprive us of our rights.

Good luck trying to show THAT.

Therefore, upon demonstration that said police power is indeed
arbitrary or unreasonable, the revocation of said police power must
rightfully be forthcoming, along with the revocation of any
requirement of Licensing.

No, you're wrong.

And, indeed, Driver Licensing IS unreasonable due to it's redundant
and unnecessary nature.

That is not a qualifier on which to declare something arbitrary or
unreasonable. Just because you think you have another way to get to a
goal doesn't mean ALL other ways are invalid.

You lose.

Therefore, the police power subjecting our Right to operate motor
vehicles on public highways to Driver Licensing IS INDEED and IN FACT
unreasonable, and subject to revocation.

Ooops. You're wrong again! Proven wrong and irrefutably so.