U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL
Source:
American Patriot Friends Network
URL Source: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/travel.htm
Published: May 17, 2011
Author: By Jack McLamb
Post Date: 2011-05-17 20:32:57 by We The People
Keywords: None
Views: 17077
Comments: 29
Right to Travel DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS, HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases: CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221. CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579. It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution. CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125. CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941. As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel. Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions -- such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few -- on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so? For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly: "The state cannot diminish rights of the people." And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void." Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point -- that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward: "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24 "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491. "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946 We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding." In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..." Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials? If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are: by lawfully amending the constitution, or by a person knowingly waiving a particular right. Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations. There are basically two groups of people in this category: More- http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/right2travel.shtml
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
Thoughts?
Tag lines are gay.
The right to travel is not the same as the right to drive.
The Republican budget goes after children and the poor. Courage would be going after defense and the rich. Bill Maher
That would mean, according to the cases listed above, that you are free to travel without a license, just not alone? You must have someone drive you? Isn't that a restriction on your right to travel?
Tag lines are gay.
No more than not having enough money to buy air time on tv or space in print media is a restriction on free speech.
The Republican budget goes after children and the poor. Courage would be going after defense and the rich. Bill Maher
Ergo, you can't travel unless you have someone else who does have a license drive you. That doesn't work, legally. Government could suspend all privileges to drive and then where would out "right to travel" guy be, when there is no driver to hire? In the Thompson case above, I believe it elaborates that use of any common means of conveyance is a right by necessity. 150 years ago, that would include using horses. 150 years from now, it may include jet packs and flying scooters. Whatever is a common means of travel in any given time or era, use of that means is by necessity a right. In this day and age, use of a car to get places is recognized by society as a common means of transport, and without it, it would simply be impossible to live in most areas of the country.
In that case, if I can't afford a car is my right to travel abridged?
The Republican budget goes after children and the poor. Courage would be going after defense and the rich. Bill Maher
Isn't that a restriction on your right to travel? No, that means you take Greyhound, you kook. Stay the fuck off the road before you kooks kill someone because having a drivers license makes your crazy paranoia go off.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
I see you've chosen the more direct route.
The Republican budget goes after children and the poor. Courage would be going after defense and the rich. Bill Maher
You do realize that as late as 2003, a person taking the driving part of the "drivers' license test" in Georgia didn't have to leave the parking lot of the DMV to exibit their driving skills? And that person could then drive legally in any state? As long as the state got the money, the state was happy. So please spare us your bullshit about "safety", will ya?
Tag line: I wuz HACKED, cuz I SAY so!
No more, or less so, then if you could not afford a horse in 1850. What you can afford has no bearing on what your rights are.
A Greyhound driven by someone with, or without a license? The vast majority of car accidents are caused by licensed drivers.
Yes. Therefore, the state should buy you a car, paid for by other people's money.
Tag line: I wuz HACKED, cuz I SAY so!
You are correct. It includes the right to drive plus a whole bunch of other rights.
lol that is weak.
Yeah what you said.
Of course not.
No. This is insane crap. Children looking to cause trouble. Ridiculous. Etc.
------------------------------------- Of course not. Then neither is my right to travel abridged by the requirement that I have a license to operate any particular means of conveyance. I may travel by car, that is my right. That right, however, does not include the right to a car, nor the right to operate the car.
The Republican budget goes after children and the poor. Courage would be going after defense and the rich. Bill Maher
That was deep, very deep.
The Republican budget goes after children and the poor. Courage would be going after defense and the rich. Bill Maher
Pinquinite's argument has merit, but if I have the right to drive a car then I have the right to have a gas station at my disposal. Back when animals were doing the grunt work you could graze them on the side of the road in most areas of the US.
"http://first-draft-blog.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5ced53ef0148c7a28c4b970c-320wi"
I read this article yesterday, and was kicking it around on my drive to work... The underlying issue, IMO, is that the government- at ALL levels- overtly ignores the Constitution. I suspect they secretly sneer at those of us who expect them to obey its tenets... There is only one way to force adherence to it, and that will be through force of arms. It's the ONLY thing they respect- superior power. To them, nothing else matters. (((Sigh)))
List of those unable to think: Bumper sticker on DwarF's car: LOL! You're such a funny little drama queen!
Tag lines are gay.
This is very interesting. Of the opinions above, those on the left side with government and their restrictive 'licensing' of drivers, while those on the right side with freedom, a persons right to travel and actual case law. Who could have seen that coming? LOL!
Tag lines are gay.
If wanting unqualified people off the road makes me a left winger than so be it. You want to travel without a driver's license then take a bus.
"Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs.
We all know how you folded like a lawn chair when push came to shove on the matter.
Now, I know I’m not going to change the minds of any of the True Believers…those who read all of Reverend Al’s sermons, and say things like, “You know, global warming can mean warmer OR colder, wetter OR drier, cloudier OR sunnier, windier OR calmer, …”. Can I get an ‘amen’??
lol, true. Then fled the country.
------------------------------------- Badeye, is that you?? When in a court of corruption, one should do the corrupt thing, no?
LOL! You're not simply a stupid man, you're a stereotypical parody of a stupid man.
Tag lines are gay.
No...Padlock actually understands contractions.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..."
#2. To: We The People (#0)
#3. To: lucysmom (#2)
(Edited)
The right to travel is not the same as the right to drive.
#4. To: We The People (#3)
Isn't that a restriction on your right to travel?
#5. To: We The People, lucysmom (#3)
The right to travel is not the same as the right to drive.
That would mean, according to the cases listed above, that you are free to travel without a license, just not alone? You must have someone drive you?
Isn't that a restriction on your right to travel?
#6. To: Pinguinite (#5)
n the Thompson case above, I believe it elaborates that use of any common means of conveyance is a right by necessity. 150 years ago, that would include using horses. 150 years from now, it may include jet packs and flying scooters. Whatever is a common means of travel in any given time or era, use of that means is by necessity a right. In this day and age, use of a car to get places is recognized by society as a common means of transport, and without it, it would simply be impossible to live in most areas of the country.
#7. To: We The People, lucysmom, Pinguinite (#3)
The right to travel is not the same as the right to drive. That would mean, according to the cases listed above, that you are free to travel without a license, just not alone? You must have someone drive you?
#8. To: Godwinson (#7)
#9. To: Godwinson (#7)
#10. To: lucysmom (#6)
In that case, if I can't afford a car is my right to travel abridged?
#11. To: Godwinson (#7)
No, that means you take Greyhound, you kook.
Stay the fuck off the road before you kooks kill someone because having a drivers license makes your crazy paranoia go off.
#12. To: lucysmom (#6)
In that case, if I can't afford a car is my right to travel abridged?
#13. To: lucysmom (#2)
The right to travel is not the same as the right to drive.
#14. To: lucysmom (#4)
No more than not having enough money to buy air time on tv or space in print media is a restriction on free speech.
#15. To: Pinguinite (#5)
In the Thompson case above, I believe it elaborates that use of any common means of conveyance is a right by necessity. 150 years ago, that would include using horses. 150 years from now, it may include jet packs and flying scooters. Whatever is a common means of travel in any given time or era, use of that means is by necessity a right. In this day and age, use of a car to get places is recognized by society as a common means of transport, and without it, it would simply be impossible to live in most areas of the country.
#16. To: lucysmom (#6)
In that case, if I can't afford a car is my right to travel abridged?
#17. To: We The People (#1)
Thoughts?
Why don't you make like a tree and get out of here?
#18. To: A K A Stone (#16)
In that case, if I can't afford a car is my right to travel abridged?
#19. To: Pinguinite (#11)
The vast majority of car accidents are caused by licensed drivers.
#20. To: lucysmom. Pinquinite (#19)
That was deep, very deep.
#21. To: We The People (#1)
mcgowanjm, ferret mike, skippy, fartboy/yukko, white sands, bucky, lucys idiot mom, e_type_jackoff, go56, badlie, wreck, calCON, Kafir, war, Banjo Boris, Biff, Godwinson and meguro. If you're on the above list...? PISS OFF.
#22. To: Godwinson (#7)
No, that means you take Greyhound, you kook. Stay the fuck off the road before you kooks kill someone because having a drivers license makes your crazy paranoia go off.
#23. To: All (#0)
#24. To: We The People (#23)
Of the opinions above, those on the left side with government and their restrictive 'licensing' of drivers, while those on the right side with freedom, a persons right to travel and actual case law.
#25. To: Pinguinite (#5)
#26. To: no gnu taxes (#25)
Why don't you make like a tree and get out of here?
#27. To: no gnu taxes (#25)
#28. To: Godwinson (#24)
#29. To: Pinguinite (#27)
--GW Bush
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]