Okay. I wasn’t familiar with that one. Stilllllll, if people can’t legally get on the road, they shouldn’t be on the road. Not talking about mix-ups, talking about licenses suspended or revoked due to previous infractions.

I also knew a person who had been in Florida over ten years, had numerous accidents, finally had a highway patrolman explain to her that her Alabama learner’s permit had expired many years ago. She never had a legal right to drive in Florida but the officers must have overlooked her infractions out of concern for the three children she kept endangering every time she had a minor wreck.

In the case you cite, I have to wonder if a lawyer was actually needed or they just feared what might happen if they lacked one. Folks can be intimidating.

I am reminded of the 2000 election when many were scared to vote because there were POLICE officers near the polls. I would have thought, “Well of course there were,” but it seems they had never voted before and were scared senseless of law enforcement officers.

David for a clear conscience

I believe that he meant “DWLS” which stands for “driving while license suspended”. I agree with that in some respects but not so much in others. I knew a man who was arrested for DWLS when he went through a road block. He had no idea it had been suspended. Several years earlier, he received a ticket for speeding, paid it and assumed all was well. Somehow, wires were crossed at the Clerk’s office and the payment was not credited to him. Unbeknownst to him, a warrant was issued for his arrest and his license was suspended, hence the arrest for DWLS. His wife searched through their records, found the receipt and canceled check and took them to the Clerk. They still had to pay a bond, hire an attorney and go to court at which time all charges were dropped. The whole thing was a huge waste of their time and money and a lot of wasted man hours from the SO to the Clerk’s employees to court employees, etc.

I guess part of it is disagreement as to the seriousness of assorted crimes. I consider a DUI a murder that just hasn’t happened yet and you consider it a minor matter (assuming that is what “dwls” meant), possibly under the common but erroneous “everybody does it” philosophy.

Other crimes, though, I will eliminate when I get to be President and not just because so many of my cousins are involved in the associated agricultural endeavors.

David for right to be left alone on your own property
and unencumbered minds when behind the wheels of vehicles

An interesting concept. Generally speaking having a right does not require action on the part of other people.
Right to freely assemble does not require government to build you an assembly hall.
Right to speak does not require government to provide you a loud speaker.
Right to a free press does not require government to provide you a printing press.

Right to an attorney, however, has been interpreted to include government providing you an attorney if you can not afford one. Therefore, the right to an attorney includes paying that attorney which means your right to an attorney means taxes must be raised on others to pay for your attorney.

This implies the legislature MUST raise taxes enough to suit the minimum level of public defenders the courts determine. This would mean the legislature would have to raise those taxes or release the defendants. This would mean the branches of government were not actually independent but had to do what the judiciary said.

Of course, the judiciary has no power to enforce so that would definitely be a can of worms if they followed the Andrew Jackson response to an unpopular Supreme Court decision when he said, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

On the other side, government would thereby be limited in the laws it could pass if it had to pay for both sides of the arguments when enforcement went to court.

David for fair, simple, tolerable laws