-5

I saw a post on here that was made about operating a motor vehicle and while the OP was correct and someone answered yes you can, and even gave a brief explanation I think it's judicially irresponsible to have not gone further in depth. I have researched it thoroughly and while his excerpts were from cases regarding similar yet not exact regards to the situation he is offering, the statements made are still upheld in any case where you could apply an analogy to fit such a quote. Here is a clearer picture as to why requiring licensing is constitutionally illegal: http://www.realtruth.biz/driving/supremecourt.htm

I urge you to look at this and research not only state and federal cases but the constitution as well ND keep in mind that a horse drawn carriage was, at the time of the constitutions signing, the "car" for that time period. Also bare in mind you would not need a license to travel on a bicycle on the interstates however the states made it illegal for bicycles to enter interstates and highways so that they could force people to need a vehicle in order to trap the into a contract where the state would monetarily benefit through deception of the constitution...does any one agree?

closed as off-topic by BlueDogRanch, user6726, A.fm., Dale M, ohwilleke Nov 29 '17 at 12:16

  • This question does not appear to be about law, within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's not a question but a rant. – BlueDogRanch Nov 29 '17 at 5:59
  • I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this isn't a question, it's an incitement to political discussion. – user6726 Nov 29 '17 at 5:59
  • not a political incitement the question is do you see that it's legal to operate a motor vehicle without being licensed. I'm new to this site I just made the account. It isn't a debate it's an introduction of facts and I have the answer to a previous question...politics do not play into it at all due to the fact I'm not stating a party and as far as I know there is no party that actively agrees with this against a party that does not agree. I'm simply asking that with what I have shown you, do you understand that it is in fact legal to drive without a license? This is so you do not misinform – Jarod Quinn Nov 29 '17 at 6:06
  • 3
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it contains irresponsible disinformation that can only serve to trap the gullible in idiotic confusion based on alternative "facts." – A.fm. Nov 29 '17 at 6:36
  • 3
    License requirements are not an infringement of the right to travel. This has been settled. With or without a license, you can still travel -- even by automobile. It's just that without a license, you don't get to be the one behind the wheel. – cHao Nov 29 '17 at 18:47
1

To answer the titular question: No. It is not legal to drive a motor vehicle without a license. Any assertion that the Constitution says you don't need a license is facially wrong. The Constitution says exactly nothing about motor vehicles and therefore can't have a position on whether drivers' licenses are legal or illegal. That regulation would be something that either Congress, or the states, would pass, and they have done so.

  • 1
    I'd like to add that in the linked cases, they only confirm a broader right to travel (and travel with goods). They make no mention of any absolute right to travel exclusively by car. The cases are talking about travelling in the general sense. – Shazamo Morebucks Nov 29 '17 at 13:12
  • While this is correct, calling a claim "facially stupid" does not comply with the "be nice" policy. See law.stackexchange.com/help/be-nice – phoog Nov 29 '17 at 13:43
  • Changed that just now, @phoog. – Stackstuck Nov 30 '17 at 14:36

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.