Common law, aka case law, is that law created by judges and other judicial tribunals by virtue of being stated in written opinions. That case law has repeatedly upheld a state's legislative authority to enact laws regulating the use of a state's roads for public safety and order. The laws enacted by a legislative assembly are known as statutes. Such statutes supersede common law. They may codify existing common law. They may create new law for causes of action that did not exist in the common law. You have been required to possess a valid driver's licence in every state of the USA when behind the wheel of an automobile since 1954. There are no exemptions for not being engaged in commerce. The word _bar_ in bar association is not an acronym for some fictional entity supposedly based in the UK. It refers to the actual physical barrier in a court room that separates the public gallery from the area where the participants in legal proceedings conduct their business.

ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 4.1. Check it out for yourself .😁 www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_4_1_truthfulness_in_statements_to_others/

Why are you not permitted? Underage, suspended, dwi, didn't pay your fines, couldn't pass the test, or don't own a car?

@@B_radd I do have a license,but if for some reason, someone is unlicensed, they are still permitted to pay all the road tax the state demands whether they want to or not.Unfortunately taxes aren’t optional

@@B_radd LOL.

@lv4077 Well , they are most definitely able to use the roads.

You realize these laws were probably passed way before you could drive, right?

@@B_radd In the USA, he would have to be 85+ to be old enough to have driven in a state that didn't require him to possess licence. And 117+ years old to have driven in a state that didn't require his automobile to be registered.

​@blackprince7510 hey now, I met a 92 year old that still drives!!! Lol granted the state I live in he most definitely was required to have a license when he started!

The public roads of a state are owned by the people of that state *COLLECTIVELY.* They do not belong to you personally. The US Supreme Court ruled over 100 years ago in its decision of _Hendrick v. Maryland,_ 235 US 610 (1915), that a state has the authority to enact laws regulating the use of its roads for public safety and order, including licensing of drivers and registration of vehicles, and that this authority applies to all users of a state's roads. The people of every state authorized their elected representatives to enact laws regulating the use of their roads. Every state's legislative assembly enacted by 1922 a law requiring registration of automobiles. Every state's legislative assembly enacted a law requiring possession of a driver's licence, with no exemption for those not engaged in commercial use of an automobile, by 1954. No court, federal or state, since the _Hendrick v. Maryland_ ruling has accepted that you have as part of your right to travel a right to physically control an automobile free from such laws. Before you tell others to "learn the law", you might want to try learning it yourself. "Learning the law" is not blindly accepting whatever BS you find on the internet telling you what you want to hear.

They are public, and you are free to use them as long as you follow all constitutional laws when you do.

@@RossDawson-s6h that's a good law buddy

That a good law buddy I mean swearing to anyone deserves consequences

@@lallianzama3549 yeah if a police officer asks you for drugs it will not stand up in court. Same with prostitution, although that is now decriminalised in Edinburgh (Scotland, as long as it’s within a legal sauna).

@@lallianzama3549 yes but consider that scenario that you’ve had too much to drink . You swear, you get a warning your drunken mouth says f🤬 sorry . That’s two a third is bound to come sooner or later. It really can be as innocent as that, oh and never point 👈🏻 it is now assault. British laws are archaic. Believe it or not it was a top American Police officer that came over in the early 90s to teach us zero tolerance policing, which led to our freedom being violated. They called it the Criminal Justice Bill and it gave the police powers that you wouldn’t believe.

@@lallianzama3549 I would add that some of the behaviour towards the police I’ve seen is disgusting. Absolutely no respect at all and it’s not just towards the police but society in general. Where my generation went wrong raising these entitled brats is beyond me?

🤣 As in, I'm a robot or lizard person?

@@MatthewHarrisLawPLLC demon

​@@TheForeignNationalBornNaturalor truthsayer!

@@DailyDamage you only have the right to remain silent in a criminal case so if you kill somebody, you can remain silent, but in any other case, that’s not criminal it does not work

🤣 Wait! Before you make a run for the border, perhaps you'd like a shot at redemption with Test #2? kzbin.infoWqhSm8bmyG4

hell, they even make crap up !!

@amtb70x7anunkwn9 pretty much everything you need is covered in Hendricks V Maryland…..back in 1915 (over a hundred years ago back when the first vehicles were on the road) 1) your freedom of movement established in Crandall V Nevada does not cover particular modes of travel 2) “motor vehicle laws imposing reasonable license fees does not interfere with the rights of a citizen to pass through the state” (one of the three things your right to travel covers as confirmed in the case Saenz v Roe) 3) these regulations apply to both residents and non residents 4) these regulations apply to both those engaged in interstate commerce as well as those using their vehicles for personal use 5) they established that the actual act of driving (physically controlling a vehicle by way of intentional movement) is inherently dangerous and as more and more cars, being bigger and faster appear on the road new regulations need to be put in place Oh and in that case along with most state laws automobile is used interchangeably with motor vehicle. Or rather most of the laws consider motor vehicle to include all automobiles used to transport persons or property…..yourself included

And just which rulings would those be? Certainly in the over 12 years that I have read the claims of people on the internet saying there are US Supreme Court, lower federal appellate court, state supreme court, and lower state appellate court decisions supporting the claim that you cannot be required by state law to possess a licence when behind the wheel, *NOT ONE PERSON* actually backed up the claim with an actual court decision that had made any such ruling.

Why do people always say there are rulings but never cite them?

The cheeto Mussolini? LOL.

Constitutional law says nothing of the sort. The US Supreme Court has ruled a state has the authority to enact laws regulating the use of ist roads for public safety and order, including licensing of drivers and registration of vehicles, and that this authority applies to all users of a state's roads. State supreme and lower appellate courts have been rejecting the right to travel and not engaged in commerce arguments for decades. The last state to exempt those not using automobiles for commerce from its driver's licence requirement, South Dakota, eliminated its exemption in 1954. But please cite these supposed supreme court cases that ruled only those engaged in commercial use of automobiles require a licence.

• _Murdock v. Pennsylvania,_ 319 U.S. 105 (1943), was a ruling on a municipal ordinance that required some Jehovah's Witnesses to obtain a *BUSINESS PERMIT* before they could go door-to-door performing their evangelical missionary work and asking for donations in return for religious literature. The US Supreme Court ruled that this requirement violated the Witnesses' rights to freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of expression. The Court did not rule that a state law requiring possession of a driver's licence when behind the wheel of an automobile on public roads, and the associated fee for that licence, was a similar violation of your rights. It has never made any such ruling. • _Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham,_ 394 U.S. 147 (1969), was a ruling on the denial of a parade permit for a civil rights march. The US Supreme Court ruled that the denial of the permit had been done for the express purpose of denying the right of freedom of expression *RATHER THAN THE LEGITIMATE PURPOSE OF REGULATING THE STREETS AND SIDEWALKS FOR THE SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC.* In fact the US Supreme Court had ruled in _Cox v. New Hampshire,_ 312 U.S. 569 (1941), that _“[t]he authority of a municipality to impose regulations in order to assure the safety and convenience of the people in the use of public highways has never been regarded as inconsistent with civil liberties, but rather as one of the means of safeguarding the good order upon which they ultimately depend"_ and _"[i]n exercise of its power to license parades on city streets, the State may charge a license fee reasonably adjusted to the occasion, for meeting administrative and police expenses."_ It cited this in the Shuttlesworth case, contrasting the circumstances of the Shuttlesworth and Cox cases. The courts have rejected the use of _Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham,_ 394 U.S. 147 (1969), as a basis for an argument claiming the a driver's licence requirement is a violation of your rights. For example, a US district court wrote the following in 2010: _"California's ensuring public safety by licensing drivers on public thoroughfares is not akin to Birmingham's restricting parade permits only to those whose political speech conformed to the subjective preferences of its city council. Shuttlesworth does not authorize Plaintiff or any other California resident to drive without a license."_ - _Tater-Alexander v. County of Fresno,_ 1:10-cv-01050-AWI-SMS. (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2010) You might want to find a better source of information about the law than whatever you are currently using. I suggest starting with reading the actual laws in your state governing the use of your state's public roads. Then you might want to try reading for yourself the various court decisions your source of misinformation claimed supported that you supposedly don't require a licence when behind the wheel. You will find most have absolutely nothing to do with driver's licence laws at all and the few that do did not rule they are unconstitutional. Every state has required you to possess a driver's licence since 1954. A couple of states, Massachusetts and Missouri, have required possession of a licence since 1903.

@@debbie4503 I think that's from the simpsons... I thibk it was Homer, he had the right to remain silent what he lacked was the ability.

99% of the time you're not under arrest as well there has to be a crime a tort damages and a victim.

It's because Miranda v. Arizona is the case upon which your "Miranda" rights are based. Similarly named things include the Brady rule, Roe v. Wade and your Roth IRA.

@rj538 v motor coach: “Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, *though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience* .”

You might want to actually look up the two court cases yourself rather than simply accept whatever BS you found on some web page claiming they support the notion that you cannot be required to possess a driver's licence by state law. • _Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago,_ 169 NE 22, 337 Ill. 200 (Ill. 1929), was a Supreme Court of Illinois decision ruling on the question of whether or not the city of Chicago had the power to regulate a bus company, by requiring it obtain a *BUSINESS PERMIT* from the city to operate on its streets, when it was already licensed by the State of Illinois to operate on the state's public roads. The court ruled that the CITY did not have that power. The decision had nothing to do with whether or not requiring one to possess a driver's licence before operating an automobile on public roads was constitutional. The decision certainly did not prevent Illinois from enacting in 1939, 10 years later, its first law requiring those behind the wheel of an automobile on public roads to possess a valid driver's licence even if not engaged in commercial use of that automobile. A requirement that still exists in Illinois law 85 years later. • _People v. Horton,_ 14 Cal. App. 3d 930 (1971), was a ruling on an appeal of a marijuana possession conviction heard by the California Court of Appeals. Mr. Horton had been the subject of a traffic stop late at night. When the cop realized that the car has apparently been "hotwired", he asked and received permission from Mr. Horton to search the car. Looking in the glove box, the cop found two burnt cigarettes. The cop then asked for the registration and found out that it was not in Mr. Horton's name. he arrested Mr. Horton. The cop searched Mr. Horton and found an rolled cigarette in one of his pockets. All three cigarettes contained marijuana. The California Court of Appeals found that the cop did not actually have probable cause to stop Mr. Horton's automobile. The cop had not observed Mr. Horton committing any violations of the state's motor vehicle law and had not observed any activity on the part of the two young passengers to give him cause to believe criminal activity had or was going to occur. Since there was no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to perform the traffic stop, the traffic stop was held to be illegal. Since the traffic stop was illegal, the search was illegal and therefore the marijuana evidence was not admissible in court. The California Court of Appeals reversed the conviction. The case has absolutely nothing to do with California law requiring possession of a driver's licence. In fact, the word _license_ is not mentioned even once in the decision. • I am not sure which _People v. Haven_ decision you meant to cite since you did not provide a proper citation for it. But I suspect it is just as irrelevant to driver's licence laws as _People v. Horton._

@rj538 Chicago v motor coach: “Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, *though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience* .”

Can't legally drive an automobile on public roads without a drivers license and registration.

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say you have a god-given right to physically control an automobile on a state's public roads free from laws regulating your use of an automobile for public safety and order. No court in the USA has accepted you have such a right since the US Supreme Court ruled in _Hendrick v. Maryland,_ 235 US 610 (1915), that a state has the authority to enact such laws as part of its police power under US constitutional law.

Maritime law has no bearing on you physically controlling an automobile on the public roads of a state. UK (British) law applies in the UK, not the USA. The word "bar" in bar association is not some acronym for a fictional organization. It simply refers to the bar that separates the public gallery of a court room from the area where the judge, lawyers, and other participants in a legal proceeding conduct business.

pretty much everything you need is covered in Hendricks V Maryland…..back in 1915, and has never been reversed 1) your freedom of movement established in Crandall V Nevada does not cover particular modes of travel 2) “motor vehicle laws imposing reasonable license fees does not interfere with the rights of a citizen to pass through the state” (one of the three things your right to travel covers as confirmed in the case Saenz v Roe) 3) these regulations apply to both residents and non residents 4) these regulations apply to both those engaged in interstate commerce as well as those using their vehicles for personal use 5) they established that the actual act of driving (physically controlling a vehicle by way of intentional movement) is inherently dangerous and as more and more cars, being bigger and faster appear on the road new regulations need to be put in place Oh and in that case along with most state laws automobile is used interchangeably with motor vehicle. Or rather most of the laws consider motor vehicle to include all automobiles used to transport persons or property…..yourself included

Why not cite a SCOTUS case law that says a drivers license and registration isn't required?

The people who know next to nothing about the law, yet seem to think they know a lot, are those claiming to have the right to drive an automobile on public roads free from laws such as a driver's licence requirement. An imaginary right that the courts have been rejecting for decades.

Well said!

Let's just say u got pulled over, u do have the right to shut up but u still have to let the officer know u are using the 4th. Just put it simply, u can say nothing or u can ask questions about why u are stopped but answer no questions. This is why police hate dealing with lawyers/politicians, when they are not inebriated, because they will answer a question with a question.