-6

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?

Jarod Quinn
  • 1
  • 3

1 Answers1

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.

Stackstuck
  • 407
  • 4
  • 15