Poll...Should I.D. Be required to vote?

[Thogey]

Everyone who voted yes is RAYCIS.

Get used to it!

[agmoose]

Yes, in every state........ I showed my FL concealed weapons card last week as my proof of ID.

[rickygee]

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[theo]

Some opposing views would be that since it costs money to get an ID, then that requirement is akin to a poll tax. If they jumped the cost of the ID to $250 many could not afford to vote. My state has rectified that by issuing a free State ID in lieu of a drivers license.

Also, I do not know if the State ID part has the same contractual requirements, but many in the sovereignty movement have pointed out and shown that applying for and receiving an ID or license does place you into a certain contracual obligation that many are not willing to participate in. Such as, you agree to obey all the rules, laws, ordinances, codes of the State and agree to be regulated by such. After you have signed this "contract" you must submit to any law, code or ordinance they deliver whether it is in compliance with State and Federal constitutions or not for example the fourth amendment is regularly violated by roadside checkpoints complete with search dogs, that you have to submit to or face arrest, because it is in the terms you agreed to when you got your license. Rights can not be taken from you, but may be surrendered or contracted away.

I have not voted yet because I am undecided, just offering alternative views here.

Honestly, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. A driver's license is essentially your permission from the state to operate a motor vehicle on public roads as driving is legally considered a priviledge. The DL does not bind the individual to anything. The obligation to follow traffic laws is conferred to moment you get behind the wheel, with or without a license. To argue different is essentially saying that those without DLs are free to run stop signs and double park.

[Kurr]

That has been argued, and I do not wish to hijack this thread with the arguing of this.

Courts have said:
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125

"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941

To be precise, you are correct, in the strict sense it is not a "contract" per se, but is a unilateral grant by the state of the privilege to operate a properly tagged motor vehicle on the State's roads, under certain obligations upon yourself that have been agreed and authorized by your signature. Not exactly a true "contract", perhaps an adhesion contract.

As I have said many times before, a Right can not be taken from you, but may be surrendered or contracted away. It is these agreeances to surrender such protections as the 4th amendment Rights that many have issues with. I drive, and have a valid license, so I am not argueing the "freeman" "soveriegn" philosophies, but as I said, just providing an opposong view in light of what was asked in the poll and it's framework.

I do think the voting process should be regulated so that one "Actual Legal Citizen" gets one vote but am unsure of how to assure that. I would also like to see the votes tallied where the popular vote counts, and Electoral College delegates were bound by the votes of their constituants, but thats just me.

I think I'll vote yes in that "some form of ID" be used, passport, birth certificate, proof of residency, etc.

EDIT: Voted yes

[68Camaro]

The right to "travel" and the right to "drive" are two completely different things.

[Bluegill]

The right to "travel" and the right to "drive" are two completely different things.

The Thompson v. Smith ruling says otherwise.

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579

How else would one use an automobile, push it, pull it..? But never "drive" it..? Driving is part of the act of traveling. Actually, we need to define driving. Me personally, I operate a motor vehicle in my desire to exercise my right to travel. On roads I paid for.

[Mossy]

Yes, in every state........ I showed my FL concealed weapons card last week as my proof of ID.

Mine does not have an address on it. Does yours?

[68Camaro]

The right to "travel" and the right to "drive" are two completely different things.

The Thompson v. Smith ruling says otherwise.

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579

How else would one use an automobile, push it, pull it..? But never "drive" it..? Driving is part of the act of traveling. Actually, we need to define driving. Me personally, I operate a motor vehicle in my desire to exercise my right to travel. On roads I paid for.

Read it again more clearly.

What I take from it is that I have a right to cause a vehicle to be operated on a public highway for my purposes, whether my vehicle or another. I have a right to ride in that vehicle while it is moving, and I have a right to cause that vehicle to transport my legal property.

It says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about me being the driver of the vehicle, and in fact me being that driver is NOT a requirement for completion of the tasks for which it says I have a right.

The ruling does not address at all the idea of whether or not I have a right to have a driver's license, or to be a driver.

[68Camaro]

Yes, in every state........ I showed my FL concealed weapons card last week as my proof of ID.

Mine does not have an address on it. Does yours?

Florida's does not.

[Bluegill]

The right to "travel" and the right to "drive" are two completely different things.

The Thompson v. Smith ruling says otherwise.

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579

How else would one use an automobile, push it, pull it..? But never "drive" it..? Driving is part of the act of traveling. Actually, we need to define driving. Me personally, I operate a motor vehicle in my desire to exercise my right to travel. On roads I paid for.

Read it again more clearly.

What I take from it is that I have a right to cause a vehicle to be operated on a public highway for my purposes, whether my vehicle or another. I have a right to ride in that vehicle while it is moving, and I have a right to cause that vehicle to transport my legal property.

It says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about me being the driver of the vehicle, and in fact me being that driver is NOT a requirement for completion of the tasks for which it says I have a right.

The ruling does not address at all the idea of whether or not I have a right to have a driver's license, or to be a driver.

And how in pray tell were you expecting to do all that without driving or operating said vehicle..? The right to travel and the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness did not come with exclusions or exceptions. No where is it stated how I may travel, or how said vehicle gets driven or operated.

[Doctor Steuss]

I’m kind of on the fence on this one. On one hand, even though most reports (that I've seen, that is) show that voter fraud is fairly rare, sometimes a few votes make all the difference, and we should do what we can to make sure elections are free from shenanigans.

On the other hand, there's something that rubs me wrong about the thought of having to "show papers" in order to participate in a basic right as a law-abiding American citizen.

[68Camaro]

And how in pray tell were you expecting to do all that without driving or operating said vehicle..?.

Hire it done.

Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just describing what the ruling does and doesn't say.

It says you have a right to be on the road traveling. It doesn't say you have a right to be the driver.

[slickeast]

Ever heard of identity theft?

How would you like it if you showed up at the polls after work and them telling you that you already voted?

[slickeast]

And how in pray tell were you expecting to do all that without driving or operating said vehicle..?.

Hire it done.

Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just describing what the ruling does and doesn't say.

It says you have a right to be on the road traveling. It doesn't say you have a right to be the driver.

Riding a bike and walking are forms of travel. I don't need a license for that.

My daughter (8 years old ) travels all the time. She doesn't have a license

If someone is operating a car, I want them to have training and be certified that they can safely operate their car. If operating a car is solely a right that doesn't require any certification ( ie a license ) then we would have blind people driving, 10 year old kids, and people who are unable to safely operate a car due to lack of training. By some of the arguments above, this would be allowed because traveling on a road is our right.

[IdahoCopper]

When you register your car with the state, you exchange your good and lawful Title for a Certificate of Title. This is the significant departure point where you left your Rights behind. By registering your car, you converted it into a legally defined "motor vehicle", in which the state is the owner or "trustee", and you are merely the beneficary of the implied "trust". Since the state owns your car, you must have a drivers licence and follow all the rules of the road. That's it in a nutshell.