Quantcast

Mandatory Auto Insurance - Constitutional or Unconstitutional

Dennis C Latham 2010/04/28 21:24:04
Constitutional
Unconstitutional
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Barbara Hasler 2010/04/28 23:33:09
    Constitutional
    Barbara Hasler
    +10
    Driving is a priviledge not a right. In order to use the priviledge you must make provisions for the safety of others. Under the 10th amendment a state can madate auto insurance. Insurance is sold to meet each state's individual requirements. It is not transferable.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • kelsey.compars 2015/03/11 23:02:23
    Constitutional
    kelsey.compars
    Mandatory auto insurance seems constitutional to me. If you cause damage to someone else's car and you are the one at fault it should be you who pays for the damages. Paying for damage repairs can get expensive and not everyone has an extra chunk of money in their savings for cases like that. http://www.coastcompins.com/c...
  • AidenRenolds 2015/01/08 15:03:41
  • Lew 2014/12/19 22:40:22
  • Kerry James 2014/08/12 16:07:59
  • JohnnyRudick 2014/06/27 20:09:10
    Unconstitutional
    JohnnyRudick
    There is no way that being forced by government to buy any product is Constitutional.
    They say IF you want to drive on OUR highways you have to buy this government approved product unless you are able to insure yourself and we have to approve that as well.
    I have very mixed thoughts about that argument, but we still get back to - Government should not be able to force you to buy a product that in doing so will enrich the seller.
  • shelly.slader 2014/06/27 18:59:14
  • JohnnyR... shelly.... 2014/06/27 20:10:14
    JohnnyRudick
    You are right in why we need to have insurance.
    But is it Constitutional?
  • Will Jenkins 2014/06/04 21:50:56
  • JohnnyR... Will Je... 2014/06/27 20:11:18
    JohnnyRudick
    You are right in why we need to have insurance.
    For are protection as well as for the protection of others.
    But is it Constitutional?
  • thiago.daluz.50 2013/12/05 16:43:33
  • alen wa... thiago.... 2014/01/31 19:19:25
    alen walker
    +2
    the majority of people on the road today constitutionally travel the roads for many different purposes and it is not for commercial purposes. traveling to and from work is not a commercial purpose it is their way to get to work. on the other hand we have commercial drivers who use their vehicle or a company vehicle to work. they should be forced to buy a product such as insurance because they fall under the definition of a driver which by the way is a privilege. Traveling is a right not a privilege and therefore should not be put in the same category as a driver. Beside we have a pretty good idea who uses their vehicles for travel and for commercial purposes simply because the are required to display that information on the vehicle they operate. Insurance mandates became law because the insurance companies paid for that law or better yet you the insured paid them to pay for that law and you continue to support them in their efforts to drain your wallet for a piece of paper you may never file a claim on. FREE MONEY.
  • Francis 2013/11/14 11:38:58
    Unconstitutional
    Francis
    +1
    There is a difference in definition of a traveler and a driver. If one is to use the highways for leisure and the pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness then one can use an automobile without interference from City or State regulations. If one is to conduct business on the Highway for hire or personal gain then one is subjected to be required to have a Drivers Licenses. When you go to your local DMV and apply for a Drivers Licenses you have to pass their tests to be considered an able operator of the motor vehicle. When you sign the licenses you also pay a fee and you relinquish your rights and are subjected to the ordinances and statues of that state. The license is there for required to be an operator and or driver of a motor vehicle in the use of commerce. If one is to own an automobile for private use of travel there is no law that affords you to surrender your rights to such a contract as a Drivers Licenses. The definitions of such words are important to understand: Traveler, Driver, Operator, Automobile, Motor Vehicle, Personal Travel, Transport in Commerce, and Traffic. Knowing the definitions of these words and how they are used in Federal Law under the Constitution are very important. With this said, if one is to be a traveler for personal leisure in the pursuit of li...
    There is a difference in definition of a traveler and a driver. If one is to use the highways for leisure and the pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness then one can use an automobile without interference from City or State regulations. If one is to conduct business on the Highway for hire or personal gain then one is subjected to be required to have a Drivers Licenses. When you go to your local DMV and apply for a Drivers Licenses you have to pass their tests to be considered an able operator of the motor vehicle. When you sign the licenses you also pay a fee and you relinquish your rights and are subjected to the ordinances and statues of that state. The license is there for required to be an operator and or driver of a motor vehicle in the use of commerce. If one is to own an automobile for private use of travel there is no law that affords you to surrender your rights to such a contract as a Drivers Licenses. The definitions of such words are important to understand: Traveler, Driver, Operator, Automobile, Motor Vehicle, Personal Travel, Transport in Commerce, and Traffic. Knowing the definitions of these words and how they are used in Federal Law under the Constitution are very important. With this said, if one is to be a traveler for personal leisure in the pursuit of liberty and not in commerce, then the statutes of having a drivers licenses, insurance, registration and even inspections in some states do not apply. If one is to use in business of commerce or for profit, then all of these can be required. The reason for the latter is to protect the publics ability to freely travel under the provision of the Constitution. The fees charged for these contracts are supposed to go towards the states treasury to repair such highways. Do the research and you should agree that a forced drivers licenses to openly travel without the purpose of commerce, the forced mandated insurance, the forced mandated registration is unconstitutional. For these to be forced on people who in fact use the public highways for profit is Constitutional. If you are to use an automobile as a traveler you can not be forced by law enforcement officers at a sobriety check point. This is an illegal stop, search and seizure. If you are conducting business on the highway for gain in commerce then you would have to abide to the sobriety check point. This understanding of the law needs to be spread as much as possible across this country. There should be a fine line between the powers of the state over the people. We must fight to keep and get our liberties back!
    (more)
  • JohnnyR... Francis 2014/06/27 20:16:10
    JohnnyRudick
    So, how successful have you been using this "true" argument with policemen and judges?
    I believe you are right and have thought so for some time but if the Judge will not listen to your argument . . . .
  • Sarley 2013/08/15 19:10:45
  • gary ® 2013/04/16 18:46:04
    Constitutional
    gary ®
    SOCK ALERT!!! This user doesn't exist.
  • johnnyg 2013/04/16 17:24:43
    Unconstitutional
    johnnyg
    +1
    Don't get in an accident, you will not need insurance. Get in a minor accident PAY FOR IT!!
  • JohnnyR... johnnyg 2014/06/27 20:20:01
    JohnnyRudick
    +1
    It can get very expensive.
    Get stopped for a light out and the policeman asks for proof of insurance.
    You cannot provide it and that is a ticket.
    You go before the judge because you will not pay the ticket and he will not agree with your interpretation of the Constitution and that is even more expense if you get to keep your drivers license (if you even have one of those and if not then that is even more. . . .)
  • johnnyg JohnnyR... 2014/07/03 02:09:15
    johnnyg
    +1
    I have insurance. I still say it is unconstitutional.
  • JohnnyR... johnnyg 2014/07/03 03:37:31
    JohnnyRudick
    +1
    Ditto.
  • Katfish 2013/04/16 17:12:05
    Unconstitutional
    Katfish
    +2
    The roads are required in order to travel. Is travel a right?
    Others are claiming that you own a vehicle by choice...... yes but in order to travel it is mandated that the vehicle you are transported in no matter who "owns" it has insurance coverage and licensed operator. You can pay a bus, a taxi, a friend or whomever then you are contributing to the required insurance....... period. You cannot travel without contributing to the mandated insurance/license required. So travel is apparently a "right" that you must pay for.
  • SuiJuris249 2013/04/16 09:29:16
    Unconstitutional
    SuiJuris249
    +3
    They claim they can make insurance mandatory because driving is a privilege. This claim is a false claim. In fact the use of the highways is a Right.

    "The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived."

    Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22?1;
    Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934;
    Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607;
    25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163

    "The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, 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 vs. Smith, 154 SE 579

    "the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary."

    E...
















    They claim they can make insurance mandatory because driving is a privilege. This claim is a false claim. In fact the use of the highways is a Right.

    "The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived."

    Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22?1;
    Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934;
    Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607;
    25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163

    "The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, 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 vs. Smith, 154 SE 579

    "the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary."

    Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781

    "The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business."

    Thompson vs. Smith, supra.;
    Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784

    "First, it is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes, and that their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit."

    Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251;
    Pachard vs Banton, 264 US 140, and cases cited;
    Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592;
    Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290;
    Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313

    Wanna know more about your right to travel in your own conveyance via the highways?
    Go here and read what the lawyers and your public servants do not want you to know.
    http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref...
    (more)
  • JohnnyR... SuiJuri... 2014/06/27 20:24:05
    JohnnyRudick
    +1
    As far as I know there is not a policeman of a judge in the country that I have the luck to draw that will listen 3 minutes to this argument.

    You are right though.
  • Pascxal Redfern 2013/03/18 16:47:35
    Unconstitutional
    Pascxal Redfern
    +3
    Clearly unconstitutional. Driving or the freedom to travel is a right not a privilege. Advocates of mandates such as auto insurance, etc., argue that licensing makes driving a privilege. According to that logic, that marriage is also a privilege since most states require a marriage license (which is also unconstitutional). Individuals who argue for mandates care little for the trifles of the constitutional but care more about police powers, distribution of wealth, and pervesely very little about poor people.
  • Francis Pascxal... 2013/11/14 11:42:42
    Francis
    +2
    There is a difference in definition between driving and traveling. This is very important in Law and under Federal Supreme Court rulings. A free person has the right to travel under any means so as long as he does not commit a crime in doing so. The crimes would be considered as either harm to another, property damage or the prevention of another in their pursuit of Life, Liberty or Happiness. Traveling is a Right. On the other hand driving is a privilege for if one is to be a driver and not a traveler, they are using the highways in an act to conduct business for personal gain or are hired for commerce. I hope this clarifies things for you.
  • Sally Johnson 2012/07/17 15:38:12
  • Mark 2012/06/22 20:18:21
    Unconstitutional
    Mark
    +1
    That is right and if one must not carry the most important insurance aka health insurance then one must not be forced to carry any kind of insurance which we will soon see. In a few days, lawsuits start when Obamacare insurance is said to be unconstitutional. This will mean all other insurance forced coverages are too. States must act in a federal way too that is constitutional. That bypasses State rights. Say bye bye to malpractice if one gets hurt by a doctor or run over by a drunk driver.
  • Mark Mark 2012/06/29 14:20:50
    Mark
    +1
    USSC got my message and those of others with warn sign of constiution, State rights and how Federal law bypasses States rights on many matters like if Obamacare was struck down, all other forced insurances would be too. USSC made right move or nation would have fallen. Obama knew this because before in Senate, he was teaching constitutional law! Tricky lol He goes by Constiution only but Americans if they knew the constiution might not like it. I know it but because of medical condition, eyesight bad and typing so not sure spelling is correct here.
  • Jerry Kane 2012/05/22 20:55:30
  • Emma Cay 2012/05/03 17:23:13
  • A M Emma Cay 2012/09/01 05:35:18
    A M
    +4
    Having insurance doesn't make you any safer. The reason they mandated liability insurance was so drunk drivers could get high risk insurance. It actually made you less safe.
  • Francis A M 2013/11/14 11:51:59
    Francis
    +3
    The idea of drunk drivers is very controversial. The reason I say this is under Federal Law derived directly from the Constitution in our public right to pursue Life, Liberty and Happiness, there is a big distinction in general terms of words used. A driver is one who conducts business on the highway for personal gain or hired for commerce. So if one is licensed to be a driver or an operator of a Motor Vehicle and is under the influence of alcohol or some other substance then they are in violation of the contract to their license and are afforded by them to the statutes and penalties of the law in that state. If one is a traveler and is using the highway for personal leisure or non profit business they are not a driver and are not subjected or required to possess a license, in this event if a person is to be under the influence of alcohol they are not a drunk driver, they would then be a drunk traveler and as far as I know there is no such law against being a drunk traveler. If you do not possess a drivers license are traveling in an Automobile while being drunk and are charged with a DUI or DWI you can fight it in court and win. If you are a licenses driver and conducting business then you are subjected to the fines and penalties. Most do not know it but the moment you apply ...
    The idea of drunk drivers is very controversial. The reason I say this is under Federal Law derived directly from the Constitution in our public right to pursue Life, Liberty and Happiness, there is a big distinction in general terms of words used. A driver is one who conducts business on the highway for personal gain or hired for commerce. So if one is licensed to be a driver or an operator of a Motor Vehicle and is under the influence of alcohol or some other substance then they are in violation of the contract to their license and are afforded by them to the statutes and penalties of the law in that state. If one is a traveler and is using the highway for personal leisure or non profit business they are not a driver and are not subjected or required to possess a license, in this event if a person is to be under the influence of alcohol they are not a drunk driver, they would then be a drunk traveler and as far as I know there is no such law against being a drunk traveler. If you do not possess a drivers license are traveling in an Automobile while being drunk and are charged with a DUI or DWI you can fight it in court and win. If you are a licenses driver and conducting business then you are subjected to the fines and penalties. Most do not know it but the moment you apply for your states drivers licenses, pay the fee and sign for your licenses you are binding yourself to a contract and you end up relinquishing your rights. When you get a drivers licenses it then becomes a privilege. As long as you do not have one you have a write to travel the highway if you are not conducting for profit business.
    (more)
  • overdog001 2012/04/13 17:43:59
    Unconstitutional
    overdog001
    +1
    How about a "not sure" option? The U.S. Constitution is at federal level; I believe the laws requiring auto insurance are at state level. As far as I know (I could be wrong), there's no national law for it, and the states each have their own state law.
  • Francis overdog001 2013/11/14 11:53:18
    Francis
    +4
    You are correct about the Constitution at Federal level and Auto Insurance at State level. However a state can not impose a law that directly violates the Constitution or prohibits your rights.
  • Mark Mercer 2012/04/13 13:01:03
    Constitutional
    Mark Mercer
    It is possible to 'Insure yourself' you simply set aside the liability minimum in a separate account, available to the courts. This is why it is 'Constitutional' I think...
  • Sophie 2012/04/13 08:06:52
    Unconstitutional
    Sophie
    +1
    Very simple answer.
  • Jackie 2012/04/13 03:38:30
    Constitutional
    Jackie
    Because you don't have to buy it. You do not have to have a car. Public transportation requires no insurance premium. You only have to buy insurance if you choose to own a car. And then you are only required to cover liability. Unless you buy a brand new car and the Bank makes you cover the car for the loan protection. But then again you don't have to buy a new car either. It is all choice.
  • gator dude Jackie 2012/05/03 19:39:00 (edited)
    gator dude
    +4
    Saying that driving is a priveledge and not a right is a phrase that the DMV started which is total nonsense. Everyone knows that you need a car to get a job, get food, go to the bank, and get by in life. Driving is a "necessity", not a priveledge. As far as taking the bus, it takes like 4 hours to run 1 errand, and try carrying 100 pounds of groceries 5 blocks from the bus stop. Telling people to take the bus is coming from people who never had to go without a car. Being forced to buy liability insurance in order to get by in life is unfair. Besides, a piece a paper isn't going to keep people from running people over. Safe driving is the best insurance policy.
  • Jackie gator dude 2012/09/10 02:47:10
    Jackie
    It is still not mandatory unless you have a car. Yes it is a convience to havbe a car. And that convience requires insurance. But only liability is required. Unless you don't own your car. Then the bank can require you protect their investment.

    Nothing insures your not running over people, why you need to cover the victim you create.
  • Francis gator dude 2013/11/14 12:19:01
    Francis
    +4
    Traveling for Personal Nonprofit Business or Leisure using an Automobile is a Constitutional Right. Driving for Personal Gain, Hire or Commerce using a Motor Vehicle is a Privilege. One needs to under the key words and their definitions under Federal Law and under the Federal Courts interpretation and uses of those words in order to understand what a Right is and a Privilege is. If one is to go from their home to a relative's home it is a protected Right and no Licenses is required by Law to use an Automobile. If one is to drive either passengers or goods for a fee for commerce then it is a Privilege to use the Highways with a Motor Vehicle.
  • A M Jackie 2012/09/01 05:38:12
    A M
    +4
    Most people never have an accident - being forced to buy insurance is (pardon the expression) highway robbery. You are also determined to be guilty and forced to pay a fine before a crime is committed.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 11 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2015/08/28 09:28:48

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals