4 votes

MA 4pm driving ban anti-liberty?

The governor of MA has instituted a driving ban after 4 pm today. My stance on this is it is anti-liberty. A state should not have the ability to restrict travel of its citizens.

The news (Fox) is discussing fines and jail time, while showing Revere Beach and the oddity that nobody is there to watch the storm.

An argument for it is if they don't do it, businesses will force their employees to come in. But what business would want to risk their employees' lives? Before the governor made this unconstitutional proclamation, my CEO told us all to stay home.

Thoughts?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

On the other side of the same coin,

if you choose to travel in shocking weather conditions, are you at liberty to endanger other peoples lives to rescue you, and are you at liberty to have tax payer money spent on your rescue and recovery?

CT has a travel ban also,

CT has a travel ban also, until further notice...while all the main roads and highways are perfectly FINE to drive on at this moment.

Unconstitutional?

Looks like someone needs to go back to drivers education. Driving is a privilege, not a right. You agreed to this at the RMV when you signed you name after you got your drivers permit.

https://driversed.com/teen-drivers-education/driving-is-a-pr...

Haha, if this wasnt sarcastic, you need to study law

The right if the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or automoblie, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579

PS: I sent an email to the drivers ED site about that video on "driving is a privilege not a right" telling them the Supreme Court disagrees with them lol. Then gave them 3 court cases to prove it lol

Wow

You forgot the full passage where it includes the phrase "NORMAL CONDITIONS". I am quite sure that normal conditions do not include 3 feet of snow.

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn
carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at
will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under
this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the
public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither
interfering with nor disturbing another's rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe
conduct."

Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135

I wasn't aware "normal conditions" was defined

In the constitution, supreme justice or not, the law cannot violate a constitutional right, that is not granted by the state.

I missed the part in the constituion were 3 feet of snow was enough to deny a natural right.

You missed the whole point of the ruling, I'm not sure if that's worse than kit saying you were completely ignorant of it.

Denise B's picture

Typical Mass.

BS...didn't you know that everything in Mass. is illegal...except of course for abortion and gay marriage.

Snowmobile

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NgZhvsqhfM

"I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_enlistment

There is no duration defined in the Oath