Easy,
I understand what you are getting at but read my post again and look for the clarification.
OK here is what I understand the difference is.
A right is not given to us but the government is limited to what they can do to us under our constitution, you do not have to go through any process to obtain it, you do not have to maintain it nor do you have to justify it. For example our right to freedom of expression is not given but rather it is there the instant we are a citizen.
A privilege is given to us, it is regulated and we have to obtain it through different means - testing to see if we are qualified or applying for it and having the application adjudicated or having simply to be registered.
Driving is one of those privileges, just like owning a horse, it is not a right, and it is something government regulates or could regulate.
Now the privilege is not given or actually regulated by the federal government in my point, I should have said that but the states. Each state has the right to regulate things that are not spelled out in the constitution - driving is one that is no where in the constitution.
The point is that the state regulates driving as a privilege to maintain the general welfare of the people of the state. It was once communities and cities did the regulating but the trend was and has been to strip those decisions away from the closest level of the people and shove them in some capital in each state. It is a great way to expand states governments. Without laws and regulations, I think the premise would be death and destruction would happen - as we are human and subject to weaknesses.
We have the right to own a weapon, actually any weapon for that matter but that means until we use it for a purpose that it was intended to be used for, discharging a projectile, we have that right to that weapon. When we discharge the weapon, we now have cross over into a safety issue where the state can regulate that action which is the discharge of the weapon.
The same goes for a vehicle, we can own a vehicle but the purpose of the vehicle is to move from one point to another and once we do that, it is a regulated action.
I continue...
Traffic laws are not uniformed as they should be, licensing laws are not either. We do have traffic court which in all actuality is not needed in some cases, referees are used in place of a judge.
We do not have a right to drive a truck - period. We don't even have a right to make a living because it is not really spelled out anywhere. We have a right to property, we have a right to be free from unwarranted searches but not one of making a living.
What I mean in the first part is that the state regulates the privilege of driving and do so in different ways. The state I live in has referees who 'judge' traffic offenses without a jury or actual means of due process. We do have a right to ask for a trail by jury but also we can be refused that request, not a right.
The second part is also a state's issue, driving a truck is not a federal issues outside of the regulations to maintain the need for uniformity exclusive to interstate commerce. The states do handle the regulating and licensing of the drivers, that is their right to do so but until it becomes an interstate issue, the feds have little to do with it.
Now the CSA 2010 is a means to regulate interstate driving by uniformly using data collected by the states. The information and system for that matter has good intentions but until it affects a driver to the point where they can not find a job, not a trucking job, it can not violate any rights.
I hope that all makes sense, I know the history of the feds and the different struggles involved, it actually goes back to Grant and Lincoln, the abuse of the commerce clause by the way.
