OUR COMMON LAW RIGHT TO TRAVEL???
StarNet ed. believes, technically at least, this controversy is similar to the licensing of marriage, which licensing remains irrelevant due to the nature of the common law of a Right to Marry being practiced routinely, prior to this modern state in which such "statute" (for licensing of marriage) has come into being: thus the licensing statute does not apply to marriage. Therefore this driving license, likewise cannot apply to those who fit the definition of "just traveling about for personal reasons" which is an ancient common law practice since long before the creation of the US gov., thus making MODERN licensing statutes entirely and totally irrelevant. (see right to marry)
As with the right to travel, which has been in effect as a common law practice, long before this modern state had come into being, in which this modern state has created a "statute" regulating the usage of roads according to the wealth of the user (i.e. as if a privilege to payees or a "title of nobility" they purchase, rather making the usage of roads to be a transaction, rather than a right owned by everyone-taxpayers who paid for the roads in the first place even): which licensing essentially regulates and not always fairly or reasonably even. Also, the roads being paid for with tax dollars, also, essentially double taxation or "a tax on a tax".
The problem is this sort of irrelevant "statute" imposed by a MODERN bureaucracy tending to discrimination and abuse of power typically, will allow this "privilege" for some, but not for others such as the poor, which I have noticed is a prevalent discrimination in unregulated predatory police departments, these poor non-criminals being subjected to extortionist cash fees, and unlawful seizures and extortionist fees for retrieval of their almost worthless vehicles and pitiful belongings including their coats/phones/etc., and also against those disabled and veterans who have no access to anything connected with this process such as telephones and courts, especially when their vehicles have been thus seized irretrievably and their pockets thoroughly picked for months notwithstanding their utter exhaustion after the ordeals. Where laws are made to protect the freeborn from the states which by nature tend to corruption (hence the need for such protective laws such as "to be secure in our persons and property and effects from unlawful searches and seizures"), the state has no authority to intervene and become predatory to peoples these common laws protected in prior states.
This is the situation here, with modern day abuses by corrupt police departments and their affiliates such as those infamous and greedy tow companies whom these police routinely furnish with extremely vulnerable poor and disabled "designated victims" who desperately need to get from point A to point B in order to simply survive the day, to say the least. These people are not criminals, just poor and disabled, maybe transient, trying to get by, minding their own business, not breaking any law, only running into these ridiculous statutes whose enforcers have no discretion, nor respect for the Americans with Disabilities Law, or the poverty of the travelers. And so as the Nazarene reminded us, "the poor ye will always have with you" thus these freeborn, though poor, having the Right to Life, must be respected for their common law rights and by these time honored common rights that protect them from stupid, corrupt and predatory types within these powerful agencies.
No, I don't agree with the (below) apologists who try to pretend this licensing for traveling is lawful, it is technically in fact unlawful, WHERE this licensing bureaucracy is routinely using this situation to exploit, for profit, these non-criminals who are able drivers of motor vehicles, but cannot defend themselves: even these who are quite capable of driving safely. What is occurring also is compounding these expenses for the poor, where they are disallowed access to the courts by reason of their disabilities which are dismissed: and thus accumulate "failure to appear" charges with hefty fines they never will be able to pay up; hence this Common Law Right to Travel is impeded by the Court systems, in this fashion: this would be discrimination against the poor and disabled who cannot access these courts in order to address related tickets. To impede a law abiding freeborn American in their travels from point A to point B for personal reasons, is to behave as a HIGHWAYMAN, robbing non-criminals of their Right to Life, through Knavery, which most certainly is UNlawful behavior. Unfortunately for the poor and rich, knavery from highwaymen since time immemorial has remained a hazard to any and all who travel on unregulated roadways, and so it is best to have the Holy Elohim watching over us, on any trip. Nevertheless aside from that abuse of power and twisting of Law, I have no problem with licensing to drive, to be certain said drivers are indeed capable of driving a motor vehicle, duh.
Nevertheless, as a marriage may prove to be harmful to others if the two are not capable of properly 'driving' this encumbrance of marriage and so it gets out of hand and people get hurt; so is driving a car poorly, also a hazard to our health and safety, without proper instruction and commitment. Thus I must conclude that this area of Common Law can only remain a soft area of law, and that is why all the confusion.
Now that we have multitudes of illegals sneaking into our country, it is imperative they all be kept off the roadways and sent home, and licensing there also can prove useful. Considering all these things, I have no problem with licensing to drive a motor vehicle, but I do have a problem with the excessive fees-for-profit, and unreasonable restrictions forced upon us, such as disallowing access to resolve, in the courts, which discrimination does in fact inadvertently violate our free access to roadways for the purpose of traveling, whether commercial or not.
Anyway, requiring a drivers license for motor vehicles is legitimate and in no way impedes our right to travel the roadways if we can prove we are capable drivers of these dangerous autos, if there is no fee attached, or any lack of access to this necessity (no access to driver licensing stations or bureaus), technically. As residents who wish for safety of the children about, we with good reason, shall happily submit to this reasonable and therefore lawful "seizure" of our common right to travel, in this instance, where automobiles are seriously dangerous means of travel upon our roadways: and we would wish our neighbors, driving their kids to school, to rest assured that we are ALL capable drivers.
Common Law insists that, under the Constitution, we need not submit to UNreasonable or unlawful searches and seizures, nevertheless there is nothing unreasonable and unlawful whatsoever about submitting to a reasonable seizure of our right to travel a particular roadway such as a high speed highway, in the instance of an extremely dangerous and oftentimes life threatening motor vehicle. It seems this understanding may be neglected in the Law resolutions stated below. Nevertheless it seems to me this seizure when it applies to UNreasonable, as in the instances of discrimination against the poor, and taking advantage of this reasonable seizure for profit--making is unreasonable in the instance of exorbitant or excessive fees, and lack of access to facilities for disabled and/or house-less i.e. transient populations which DISALLOWS REASONABLE ACCESS and even violates the American's With Disabilities Act.
I have a friend who in LA, was ticketed for parking in a no parking zone, only there was a sign way up in the tree branches that signified that was indeed a lawful parking area; so he intended to clear himself of the ticket and any fee associated, by contesting this ticket, having taken a photo with his camera, of this sign in the tree branches, clearing him of his 'crime'. Well, being disabled and transient, he found himself unable to access the courthouse so to address this false accusation, and was next fined for "failure to appear" and then the problem escalated, his phone calls not answered, until his license to drive was revoked, something like that. The original problem was lack of access for a disabled transient person, and since, the domino effect that has him almost a fugitive, on the run from any and every policeman everywhere.
He with his ignorance of law has become, to me, a real pain, about all this, never heeding my good advice, and only making things worse. Now he has adopted a furtive fugitive mentality, which is obvious to cops and has become a horrible bore to me, and I am wholly disinterested in his friendship from now and forever, he can take a hike. Nevertheless, this shows how if we have NO ACCESS, how things can escalate and cost a whole lot more that the initial ticket. So my advice to any disabled person is to just pay the damned ticket with a bank check, in person, and chalk it off to LA chaos. This is DAMAGE CONTROL and can indeed save everyone alot of pain and suffering, and save your friendships as well. Next thing you know, they will be asking you to lie to the police for them, and scold you mightily when you refuse to do so, as if it was your fault he is caught. urgh! So, my advice to everyone is to JUST GET YOUR DAMNED LICENSE. God won't punish you. And I say to you, if you want to get on a bandwagon about all this, that is great, do so, but pay your tickets anyway, then nobody will snatch your pulpit out from under you in the middle of your inspired speeches!
As with the right to travel, which has been in effect as a common law practice, long before this modern state had come into being, in which this modern state has created a "statute" regulating the usage of roads according to the wealth of the user (i.e. as if a privilege to payees or a "title of nobility" they purchase, rather making the usage of roads to be a transaction, rather than a right owned by everyone-taxpayers who paid for the roads in the first place even): which licensing essentially regulates and not always fairly or reasonably even. Also, the roads being paid for with tax dollars, also, essentially double taxation or "a tax on a tax".
The problem is this sort of irrelevant "statute" imposed by a MODERN bureaucracy tending to discrimination and abuse of power typically, will allow this "privilege" for some, but not for others such as the poor, which I have noticed is a prevalent discrimination in unregulated predatory police departments, these poor non-criminals being subjected to extortionist cash fees, and unlawful seizures and extortionist fees for retrieval of their almost worthless vehicles and pitiful belongings including their coats/phones/etc., and also against those disabled and veterans who have no access to anything connected with this process such as telephones and courts, especially when their vehicles have been thus seized irretrievably and their pockets thoroughly picked for months notwithstanding their utter exhaustion after the ordeals. Where laws are made to protect the freeborn from the states which by nature tend to corruption (hence the need for such protective laws such as "to be secure in our persons and property and effects from unlawful searches and seizures"), the state has no authority to intervene and become predatory to peoples these common laws protected in prior states.
This is the situation here, with modern day abuses by corrupt police departments and their affiliates such as those infamous and greedy tow companies whom these police routinely furnish with extremely vulnerable poor and disabled "designated victims" who desperately need to get from point A to point B in order to simply survive the day, to say the least. These people are not criminals, just poor and disabled, maybe transient, trying to get by, minding their own business, not breaking any law, only running into these ridiculous statutes whose enforcers have no discretion, nor respect for the Americans with Disabilities Law, or the poverty of the travelers. And so as the Nazarene reminded us, "the poor ye will always have with you" thus these freeborn, though poor, having the Right to Life, must be respected for their common law rights and by these time honored common rights that protect them from stupid, corrupt and predatory types within these powerful agencies.
No, I don't agree with the (below) apologists who try to pretend this licensing for traveling is lawful, it is technically in fact unlawful, WHERE this licensing bureaucracy is routinely using this situation to exploit, for profit, these non-criminals who are able drivers of motor vehicles, but cannot defend themselves: even these who are quite capable of driving safely. What is occurring also is compounding these expenses for the poor, where they are disallowed access to the courts by reason of their disabilities which are dismissed: and thus accumulate "failure to appear" charges with hefty fines they never will be able to pay up; hence this Common Law Right to Travel is impeded by the Court systems, in this fashion: this would be discrimination against the poor and disabled who cannot access these courts in order to address related tickets. To impede a law abiding freeborn American in their travels from point A to point B for personal reasons, is to behave as a HIGHWAYMAN, robbing non-criminals of their Right to Life, through Knavery, which most certainly is UNlawful behavior. Unfortunately for the poor and rich, knavery from highwaymen since time immemorial has remained a hazard to any and all who travel on unregulated roadways, and so it is best to have the Holy Elohim watching over us, on any trip. Nevertheless aside from that abuse of power and twisting of Law, I have no problem with licensing to drive, to be certain said drivers are indeed capable of driving a motor vehicle, duh.
Nevertheless, as a marriage may prove to be harmful to others if the two are not capable of properly 'driving' this encumbrance of marriage and so it gets out of hand and people get hurt; so is driving a car poorly, also a hazard to our health and safety, without proper instruction and commitment. Thus I must conclude that this area of Common Law can only remain a soft area of law, and that is why all the confusion.
Now that we have multitudes of illegals sneaking into our country, it is imperative they all be kept off the roadways and sent home, and licensing there also can prove useful. Considering all these things, I have no problem with licensing to drive a motor vehicle, but I do have a problem with the excessive fees-for-profit, and unreasonable restrictions forced upon us, such as disallowing access to resolve, in the courts, which discrimination does in fact inadvertently violate our free access to roadways for the purpose of traveling, whether commercial or not.
Anyway, requiring a drivers license for motor vehicles is legitimate and in no way impedes our right to travel the roadways if we can prove we are capable drivers of these dangerous autos, if there is no fee attached, or any lack of access to this necessity (no access to driver licensing stations or bureaus), technically. As residents who wish for safety of the children about, we with good reason, shall happily submit to this reasonable and therefore lawful "seizure" of our common right to travel, in this instance, where automobiles are seriously dangerous means of travel upon our roadways: and we would wish our neighbors, driving their kids to school, to rest assured that we are ALL capable drivers.
Common Law insists that, under the Constitution, we need not submit to UNreasonable or unlawful searches and seizures, nevertheless there is nothing unreasonable and unlawful whatsoever about submitting to a reasonable seizure of our right to travel a particular roadway such as a high speed highway, in the instance of an extremely dangerous and oftentimes life threatening motor vehicle. It seems this understanding may be neglected in the Law resolutions stated below. Nevertheless it seems to me this seizure when it applies to UNreasonable, as in the instances of discrimination against the poor, and taking advantage of this reasonable seizure for profit--making is unreasonable in the instance of exorbitant or excessive fees, and lack of access to facilities for disabled and/or house-less i.e. transient populations which DISALLOWS REASONABLE ACCESS and even violates the American's With Disabilities Act.
I have a friend who in LA, was ticketed for parking in a no parking zone, only there was a sign way up in the tree branches that signified that was indeed a lawful parking area; so he intended to clear himself of the ticket and any fee associated, by contesting this ticket, having taken a photo with his camera, of this sign in the tree branches, clearing him of his 'crime'. Well, being disabled and transient, he found himself unable to access the courthouse so to address this false accusation, and was next fined for "failure to appear" and then the problem escalated, his phone calls not answered, until his license to drive was revoked, something like that. The original problem was lack of access for a disabled transient person, and since, the domino effect that has him almost a fugitive, on the run from any and every policeman everywhere.
He with his ignorance of law has become, to me, a real pain, about all this, never heeding my good advice, and only making things worse. Now he has adopted a furtive fugitive mentality, which is obvious to cops and has become a horrible bore to me, and I am wholly disinterested in his friendship from now and forever, he can take a hike. Nevertheless, this shows how if we have NO ACCESS, how things can escalate and cost a whole lot more that the initial ticket. So my advice to any disabled person is to just pay the damned ticket with a bank check, in person, and chalk it off to LA chaos. This is DAMAGE CONTROL and can indeed save everyone alot of pain and suffering, and save your friendships as well. Next thing you know, they will be asking you to lie to the police for them, and scold you mightily when you refuse to do so, as if it was your fault he is caught. urgh! So, my advice to everyone is to JUST GET YOUR DAMNED LICENSE. God won't punish you. And I say to you, if you want to get on a bandwagon about all this, that is great, do so, but pay your tickets anyway, then nobody will snatch your pulpit out from under you in the middle of your inspired speeches!
StarNet ed.'s Response...
IT'S NOT WORTH THE TROUBLE AND IT IS NO SIN TO GET THE DAMNED LICENSE AND PAY ALL YOUR PARKING TICKETS, INNOCENT OR NOT. JUST CHALK IT OFF TO DAMAGE CONTROL!
nevertheless with marriage licensing, when a couple Opts for a state marriage, they are inviting only the State to arbitrate their divorces, and reject their common law rights, inviting a third person of questionable merit into the most sensitive areas of their relationship. Oops!
What Really Matters to You?
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 (sounds about right...???)
By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)
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:
More- http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/right2travel.shtml
===============================================================
Raymond Karczewski
DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL
Thu Mar 29 14:52:35 2001
DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL
George Lee McElroy wrote:
Raymond Karczewski wrote:
rk: I received Mr. McElroy's letter to DA Clay Johnson (see below) and was given permission to repost it. May I suggest readers also repost it widely for whomever has the intelligence to understand the conversion of our Unalienable Rights and Freedoms into the slavery of governmental "Privilege" where an Inalienable Right can be transformed into a Crime.
rk: It would seem that some people are waking up to this Insurance Industry/Government Bureaucracy-instigated Driver's Licensing "Construction Fraud" long perpetrated upon the gullible American People by its mind-controlling government.
rk: It appears that we are no longer a nation governed by Constitutional Law, but have slowly and incrementlly through mind control techniques (Propaganda) become a nation controlled and dominated by bureaucratic regulation which operates under the shadowy "color" of law. Such could not happen if the public "Traveller" who travels the public roadways in the "usual conveyance of the day," i.e., private automobile, for nonbusiness, private purposes were not coerced into entering a contract without full disclosure of the contract's terms being made at the
time. Signing that contract without full knowledge of its terms requires one to waive one's Contitutional Rights and accept the full terms of a regulatory contract with penalties and sanctions designed to police the actions and conduct of those who use the public roadways for business or profit.
rk: It is through such nefarious manipulations that confusion regarding the relationship of a people and with its government emerges, wherein the Master -- the people -- become the Servant, and the Servant -- the government -- becomes the Master. Such is the transformation from Freedom to Tyranny when Rights are converted into Privileges.
rk: Here in the United States, isn't it time we took back control of our country? Isn't it time we took back control over our lives?
rk: How many reading this have been damaged psychologically and financially by such fraud through fines, incarceration, and or coercive participation in mental health program followup, and are up for joining in and launching a Class Action Law Suit against the government in this issue?
rk; Yes, folks, the curtain has been lifted and it's about time YOU PAID ATTENTION to the WIZARD BEHIND IT.
Ray Karczewski
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clay Johnson
District Attorney
Josephine County, Oregon
500 N.W. 6th Street / Courthouse
Grants Pass, Oregon 97526
Mr. Johnson,
Free people have a right to travel on the roads that are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The drivers license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and they use extraordinary machines on the roads. In other words, if you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a drivers license.
Personal liberty consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law. Streets and highways are established and maintained for the purpose of travel and transportation by the public. Such travel may be for business or pleasure. 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.
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate them. The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights. I believe a great fraud has been perpetrated against the free people of the United States of America. Be advised that fraud vitiates the most solemn contract.
I do not make my living on the roads. I have never applied for a grant of driving privileges from the State of Oregon in the form of a license. I was, however, on 10/15/2000, charged with the offense of "No Operators License". I was given a summons to appear in the Grants Pass Circuit Court. I was not required to sign the summons nor did I agree to appear. The state cannot produce any document signed by me granting an attachment of equity jurisdiction between the United States and me. The Josephine County court, without proper jurisdiction, has attached a liability to me in the amount of $218.75 and assigned it to the Oregon Department of Revenue for collection. I am being threatened with the issuance of a distraint warrant. The DMV has issued me a license number for tracking purposes so they can record a suspension of driving privileges. The state has converted my Constitutional right into a crime without due process of law.
At this time I respectfully demand that all records involving driving or operating privileges, all court records, all assignments, liabilities, and warrants having my name on them be destroyed. This communication, in addition to you, is also being sent to all the major newsgroups on the internet and other groups in the United States that are actively involved in restoring our sacred liberties that are being taken from us one by one by more or less rapid encroachment. I believe in the rule of law. I stand firmly against the abrogation of NATURAL RIGHTS endowed us by our creator.
Sincerely,
George Lee McElroy
Cc: Oregon Department of Revenue
Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles
Representative Carl Wilson
Representative Jason Atkinson
Ray Karczewski
Illinois Valley News
Grants Pass Daily Courier
Josephine County Sheriff, Dave Daniel
Oregon Attorney General, Hardy Meyers
United States Attorney General, John Ashcroft
============================
Raymond Karczewski
Re: Here's your controlling law Raymond --- OR IS IT???
Thu Mar 29 18:29:40 2001
Re: Here's your controlling law Raymond --- OR IS IT???
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:54:45 GMT
From: Immature and irresponsible (unknown)
unk: You're incoherent
unk: Why do you think only drivers of commercial vehicles need demonstrate driving competence? Are other drivers any less dangerous? Why? And what are your legal references to support any of your claims? I see nothing in your posts to support your argument in logic or law.
rk: Then you are not only an ignoramus but a blind one at that!
In the strict Letter of the Word environment which pervades the the legislative/judicial aspects of government, do not Oregon Revised Statutes § 807.080 (1999) fall within the Maxim
Res Ipsa Loquitor, i.e., "It Speaks for Itself."?
rk: If you would like to read it ONCE MORE and see what I mean, HERE IT IS AGAIN.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Oregon Revised Statutes § 807.080 (1999)
807.080. Driver competency testing certificates; waiver of demonstration test for persons certified; rules; fees.
(1) The Department of Transportation, by rule, shall provide for the following in a manner consistent with this section: (a) The issuance of driver competency testing certificates. (b) The regulation of persons issued driver competency testing certificates.
(2) A person issued a driver competency testing certificate under this section may certify, in a manner established by the department, the competency of drivers to safely exercise driving privileges granted only under one or more of the following:
(a) A Class A commercial driver license.
(b) A Class B commercial driver license.
(c) A Class C commercial driver license.
(3) The department may waive an actual demonstration of ability to operate a motor vehicle under ORS 807.070 for an applicant who is certified by the holder of a driver competency testing certificate as competent to exercise the driving privileges in the class of license sought by the applicant.
(4) The rules adopted by the department under this section may include any of the following:
(a) The rules may establish reasonable fees for the issuance of a certificate or as part of any program of regulating certificate holders that is established by the department.
(b) The department may make the certificate renewable upon any basis determined convenient by the department and may include provisions for cancellation, revocation or suspension of certificates or for probation of certificate holders.
(c) The department may provide for the issuance of certifications allowing the holder to certify competency in several classes or types of driving privileges or limiting the classes or types of driving privileges for which the holder may certify competency.
(d) The department may establish the forms of certificates to be issued.
(e) The department may establish and require forms that are to be used by certificate holders in certifying competency.
(f) The department may establish any qualifications or requirements for obtaining a certificate that the department determines necessary to protect the interests of persons seeking certification by certificate holders.
(g) The department may issue certificates to publicly owned and operated educational facilities to allow programs for certification of competency.
(h) The department may issue certificates to employers to allow the employers to establish programs primarily for the certification of employees' competency. The department may provide that programs established under this paragraph may be operated without driver training school certificates under ORS 822.500 and without driver training instructor certificates under ORS 822.525.
(i) The department may establish any other provisions or requirements necessary to carry out the purposes of this section.
HISTORY: 1985 c.608 § 36; 1989 c.636 § 20
====================================
Raymond Karczewski
Here's your controlling law Raymond --- OR IS IT???
Thu Mar 29 17:34:43 2001
Here's your controlling law Raymond --- OR IS IT???
unk: Here's your controlling law Raymond
Re: DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL (Raymond Karczewski)
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 22:02:55 GMT
From: Maybe you'd like to actually read it? (unknown)
unk: Here is the legislation duly enacted by representatives of the people. You'll notice, if you take the trouble to actually read the controlling law here, that teh purspoe of the license is to protect public safety, a compelling governmental interest that is upheld by appellate review.
rk: You will also notice that such legislation SPECIFICALLY applies ONLY TO "drivers" and commercially "driven" motor Vehicles, (check out legal definition of "driver" and "motor vehicle") AND NOT to Travellers and their private automobiles used in noncommercial activities.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oregon Revised Statutes § 807.080 (1999)
807.080. Driver competency testing certificates; waiver of demonstration test for persons certified; rules; fees.
(1) The Department of Transportation, by rule, shall provide for the following in a manner consistent with this section: (a) The issuance of driver competency testing certificates. (b) The regulation of persons issued driver competency testing certificates.
(2) A person issued a driver competency testing certificate under this section may certify, in a manner established by the department, the competency of drivers to safely exercise driving privileges granted only under one or more of the following:
(a) A Class A commercial driver license.
(b) A Class B commercial driver license.
(c) A Class C commercial driver license.
(3) The department may waive an actual demonstration of ability to operate a motor vehicle under ORS 807.070
for an applicant who is certified by the holder of a driver competency testing certificate as competent to exercise the driving privileges in the class of license sought by the applicant.
(4) The rules adopted by the department under this section may include any of the following:
(a) The rules may establish reasonable fees for the issuance of a certificate or as part of any program of regulating certificate holders that is established by the department.
(b) The department may make the certificate renewable upon any basis determined convenient by the department and may include provisions for cancellation, revocation or suspension of certificates or for probation of certificate holders.
(c) The department may provide for the issuance of certifications allowing the holder to certify competency in several classes or types of driving privileges or limiting the classes or types of driving privileges for which the holder may certify competency.
(d) The department may establish the forms of certificates to be issued.
(e) The department may establish and require forms that are to be used by certificate holders in certifying competency.
(f) The department may establish any qualifications or requirements for obtaining a certificate that the department determines necessary to protect the interests of persons seeking certification by certificate holders.
(g) The department may issue certificates to publicly owned and operated educational facilities to allow programs for certification of competency.
(h) The department may issue certificates to employers to allow the employers to establish programs primarily for the certification of employees' competency. The department may provide that programs established under this paragraph may be operated without driver training school certificates under ORS 822.500 and without driver training instructor certificates under ORS 822.525.
(i) The department may establish any other provisions or requirements necessary to carry out the purposes of this section.
HISTORY: 1985 c.608 § 36; 1989 c.636 § 20
=================================
Rev. Dr. J.D. Hooker
reply
Thu Mar 29 15:44:33 2001
This is just my own opinion, & anyone's free to disagree!!!
The Amish folks don't get drivers licenses, & they use the roadways!! BUT--they don't operate lethally dangerous iron motor vehicles either! In most states you can also drive a farm tractor on public roadways without any sort of license! They also don't have the EXPENSE of fuel, oil, tires, tune-ups & so forth! IF you're going to operate a car or truck, I'd recommend taking the trouble to get a license. If you don't want to, then why not trade in your car for a horse& buggy, or for a John Deere?
HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS (sounds about right...???)
By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)
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.
More- http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/right2travel.shtml
===============================================================
Raymond Karczewski
DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL
Thu Mar 29 14:52:35 2001
DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL
George Lee McElroy wrote:
Raymond Karczewski wrote:
rk: I received Mr. McElroy's letter to DA Clay Johnson (see below) and was given permission to repost it. May I suggest readers also repost it widely for whomever has the intelligence to understand the conversion of our Unalienable Rights and Freedoms into the slavery of governmental "Privilege" where an Inalienable Right can be transformed into a Crime.
rk: It would seem that some people are waking up to this Insurance Industry/Government Bureaucracy-instigated Driver's Licensing "Construction Fraud" long perpetrated upon the gullible American People by its mind-controlling government.
rk: It appears that we are no longer a nation governed by Constitutional Law, but have slowly and incrementlly through mind control techniques (Propaganda) become a nation controlled and dominated by bureaucratic regulation which operates under the shadowy "color" of law. Such could not happen if the public "Traveller" who travels the public roadways in the "usual conveyance of the day," i.e., private automobile, for nonbusiness, private purposes were not coerced into entering a contract without full disclosure of the contract's terms being made at the
time. Signing that contract without full knowledge of its terms requires one to waive one's Contitutional Rights and accept the full terms of a regulatory contract with penalties and sanctions designed to police the actions and conduct of those who use the public roadways for business or profit.
rk: It is through such nefarious manipulations that confusion regarding the relationship of a people and with its government emerges, wherein the Master -- the people -- become the Servant, and the Servant -- the government -- becomes the Master. Such is the transformation from Freedom to Tyranny when Rights are converted into Privileges.
rk: Here in the United States, isn't it time we took back control of our country? Isn't it time we took back control over our lives?
rk: How many reading this have been damaged psychologically and financially by such fraud through fines, incarceration, and or coercive participation in mental health program followup, and are up for joining in and launching a Class Action Law Suit against the government in this issue?
rk; Yes, folks, the curtain has been lifted and it's about time YOU PAID ATTENTION to the WIZARD BEHIND IT.
Ray Karczewski
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clay Johnson
District Attorney
Josephine County, Oregon
500 N.W. 6th Street / Courthouse
Grants Pass, Oregon 97526
Mr. Johnson,
Free people have a right to travel on the roads that are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The drivers license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and they use extraordinary machines on the roads. In other words, if you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a drivers license.
Personal liberty consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law. Streets and highways are established and maintained for the purpose of travel and transportation by the public. Such travel may be for business or pleasure. 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.
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate them. The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights. I believe a great fraud has been perpetrated against the free people of the United States of America. Be advised that fraud vitiates the most solemn contract.
I do not make my living on the roads. I have never applied for a grant of driving privileges from the State of Oregon in the form of a license. I was, however, on 10/15/2000, charged with the offense of "No Operators License". I was given a summons to appear in the Grants Pass Circuit Court. I was not required to sign the summons nor did I agree to appear. The state cannot produce any document signed by me granting an attachment of equity jurisdiction between the United States and me. The Josephine County court, without proper jurisdiction, has attached a liability to me in the amount of $218.75 and assigned it to the Oregon Department of Revenue for collection. I am being threatened with the issuance of a distraint warrant. The DMV has issued me a license number for tracking purposes so they can record a suspension of driving privileges. The state has converted my Constitutional right into a crime without due process of law.
At this time I respectfully demand that all records involving driving or operating privileges, all court records, all assignments, liabilities, and warrants having my name on them be destroyed. This communication, in addition to you, is also being sent to all the major newsgroups on the internet and other groups in the United States that are actively involved in restoring our sacred liberties that are being taken from us one by one by more or less rapid encroachment. I believe in the rule of law. I stand firmly against the abrogation of NATURAL RIGHTS endowed us by our creator.
Sincerely,
George Lee McElroy
Cc: Oregon Department of Revenue
Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles
Representative Carl Wilson
Representative Jason Atkinson
Ray Karczewski
Illinois Valley News
Grants Pass Daily Courier
Josephine County Sheriff, Dave Daniel
Oregon Attorney General, Hardy Meyers
United States Attorney General, John Ashcroft
============================
Raymond Karczewski
Re: Here's your controlling law Raymond --- OR IS IT???
Thu Mar 29 18:29:40 2001
Re: Here's your controlling law Raymond --- OR IS IT???
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:54:45 GMT
From: Immature and irresponsible (unknown)
unk: You're incoherent
unk: Why do you think only drivers of commercial vehicles need demonstrate driving competence? Are other drivers any less dangerous? Why? And what are your legal references to support any of your claims? I see nothing in your posts to support your argument in logic or law.
rk: Then you are not only an ignoramus but a blind one at that!
In the strict Letter of the Word environment which pervades the the legislative/judicial aspects of government, do not Oregon Revised Statutes § 807.080 (1999) fall within the Maxim
Res Ipsa Loquitor, i.e., "It Speaks for Itself."?
rk: If you would like to read it ONCE MORE and see what I mean, HERE IT IS AGAIN.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Oregon Revised Statutes § 807.080 (1999)
807.080. Driver competency testing certificates; waiver of demonstration test for persons certified; rules; fees.
(1) The Department of Transportation, by rule, shall provide for the following in a manner consistent with this section: (a) The issuance of driver competency testing certificates. (b) The regulation of persons issued driver competency testing certificates.
(2) A person issued a driver competency testing certificate under this section may certify, in a manner established by the department, the competency of drivers to safely exercise driving privileges granted only under one or more of the following:
(a) A Class A commercial driver license.
(b) A Class B commercial driver license.
(c) A Class C commercial driver license.
(3) The department may waive an actual demonstration of ability to operate a motor vehicle under ORS 807.070 for an applicant who is certified by the holder of a driver competency testing certificate as competent to exercise the driving privileges in the class of license sought by the applicant.
(4) The rules adopted by the department under this section may include any of the following:
(a) The rules may establish reasonable fees for the issuance of a certificate or as part of any program of regulating certificate holders that is established by the department.
(b) The department may make the certificate renewable upon any basis determined convenient by the department and may include provisions for cancellation, revocation or suspension of certificates or for probation of certificate holders.
(c) The department may provide for the issuance of certifications allowing the holder to certify competency in several classes or types of driving privileges or limiting the classes or types of driving privileges for which the holder may certify competency.
(d) The department may establish the forms of certificates to be issued.
(e) The department may establish and require forms that are to be used by certificate holders in certifying competency.
(f) The department may establish any qualifications or requirements for obtaining a certificate that the department determines necessary to protect the interests of persons seeking certification by certificate holders.
(g) The department may issue certificates to publicly owned and operated educational facilities to allow programs for certification of competency.
(h) The department may issue certificates to employers to allow the employers to establish programs primarily for the certification of employees' competency. The department may provide that programs established under this paragraph may be operated without driver training school certificates under ORS 822.500 and without driver training instructor certificates under ORS 822.525.
(i) The department may establish any other provisions or requirements necessary to carry out the purposes of this section.
HISTORY: 1985 c.608 § 36; 1989 c.636 § 20
====================================
Raymond Karczewski
Here's your controlling law Raymond --- OR IS IT???
Thu Mar 29 17:34:43 2001
Here's your controlling law Raymond --- OR IS IT???
unk: Here's your controlling law Raymond
Re: DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL (Raymond Karczewski)
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 22:02:55 GMT
From: Maybe you'd like to actually read it? (unknown)
unk: Here is the legislation duly enacted by representatives of the people. You'll notice, if you take the trouble to actually read the controlling law here, that teh purspoe of the license is to protect public safety, a compelling governmental interest that is upheld by appellate review.
rk: You will also notice that such legislation SPECIFICALLY applies ONLY TO "drivers" and commercially "driven" motor Vehicles, (check out legal definition of "driver" and "motor vehicle") AND NOT to Travellers and their private automobiles used in noncommercial activities.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oregon Revised Statutes § 807.080 (1999)
807.080. Driver competency testing certificates; waiver of demonstration test for persons certified; rules; fees.
(1) The Department of Transportation, by rule, shall provide for the following in a manner consistent with this section: (a) The issuance of driver competency testing certificates. (b) The regulation of persons issued driver competency testing certificates.
(2) A person issued a driver competency testing certificate under this section may certify, in a manner established by the department, the competency of drivers to safely exercise driving privileges granted only under one or more of the following:
(a) A Class A commercial driver license.
(b) A Class B commercial driver license.
(c) A Class C commercial driver license.
(3) The department may waive an actual demonstration of ability to operate a motor vehicle under ORS 807.070
for an applicant who is certified by the holder of a driver competency testing certificate as competent to exercise the driving privileges in the class of license sought by the applicant.
(4) The rules adopted by the department under this section may include any of the following:
(a) The rules may establish reasonable fees for the issuance of a certificate or as part of any program of regulating certificate holders that is established by the department.
(b) The department may make the certificate renewable upon any basis determined convenient by the department and may include provisions for cancellation, revocation or suspension of certificates or for probation of certificate holders.
(c) The department may provide for the issuance of certifications allowing the holder to certify competency in several classes or types of driving privileges or limiting the classes or types of driving privileges for which the holder may certify competency.
(d) The department may establish the forms of certificates to be issued.
(e) The department may establish and require forms that are to be used by certificate holders in certifying competency.
(f) The department may establish any qualifications or requirements for obtaining a certificate that the department determines necessary to protect the interests of persons seeking certification by certificate holders.
(g) The department may issue certificates to publicly owned and operated educational facilities to allow programs for certification of competency.
(h) The department may issue certificates to employers to allow the employers to establish programs primarily for the certification of employees' competency. The department may provide that programs established under this paragraph may be operated without driver training school certificates under ORS 822.500 and without driver training instructor certificates under ORS 822.525.
(i) The department may establish any other provisions or requirements necessary to carry out the purposes of this section.
HISTORY: 1985 c.608 § 36; 1989 c.636 § 20
=================================
Rev. Dr. J.D. Hooker
reply
Thu Mar 29 15:44:33 2001
This is just my own opinion, & anyone's free to disagree!!!
The Amish folks don't get drivers licenses, & they use the roadways!! BUT--they don't operate lethally dangerous iron motor vehicles either! In most states you can also drive a farm tractor on public roadways without any sort of license! They also don't have the EXPENSE of fuel, oil, tires, tune-ups & so forth! IF you're going to operate a car or truck, I'd recommend taking the trouble to get a license. If you don't want to, then why not trade in your car for a horse& buggy, or for a John Deere?
nobody on Earth has the authority to violate or impede the
Right to Travel of non-criminal populations.
Mobility is an Essential Survival Factor
in Humankind's essential God Given Right to Life.
nevertheless, these are the arguments:
STARNET ed. researching this claim.
|
BELOW, differing viewpoints on the subject. hmm...??? ..Starnet's Conclusion at bottom.
NOJURISDICTION New Member (from this page)
can anyone tell me how one would go about this "right to travel" without major problems?
any thoughts would help thank you
#2 LegalwriterOne Platinum Contributor
The right to travel does not mean the right to travel by driving a motor vehicle if you are not properly licensed. The websites and persons who tell you differently are wrong.
#3 pg1067 Platinum Contributor
#4 Guest_FindLaw_Amir_*
Could you please elaborate a bit more on your post?
#5 Tax_Counsel Platinum Contributor
'NOJURISDICTION', on 07 Aug 2012 - 11:16 PM, said:
can anyone tell me how one would go about this "right to travel" without major problems?
any thoughts would help thank you.
Yes, I can tell you how to travel on the public roads without major problems: have in your possession a valid driver's license, ensure the vehicle is properly insured, and follow the state and local traffic laws.
The right to travel does not mean that you may drive a vehicle on a public road without a valid driver's license. Those web sites that assert otherwise are giving you bad information.
#6 smokiepost New Member
Free Enterprise Society
Traveling is a Right
For many years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state governments in the form of a permit or drivers license.
Legislators, police officers, and court officials are being made aware that there are court decisions disproving the opinion that traveling is a privilege that requires government approval.
"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 22.
("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement: stop lights, signs, etc.)
"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 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 179.
It could not be stated more conclusively that citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restrictions (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293.
As hard as it is for those in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does 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 file for drivers license, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, roadblocks, etc. are restricting and therefore violating the peoples’ common law right to travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. The American Citizens and Lawmen Association, in conjunction with the U.S. Federal Law Research Center are presently involved in studies in several areas involving questions on constitutional law. One of the many areas under review is that of the citizen’s right to travel. A spokesman stated in an interview:
"Upon researching this subject over many months, substantial case law has presented itself that completely substantiates the position that the ‘right to travel unrestricted upon the nations highways’ is and always has been a fundamental right of every Citizen."
This means that the beliefs and opinions of our state legislators, the courts, and those of us involved in the law enforcement profession have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that U.S. case law is overwhelming. To restrict in any fashion the movement of the individual American, in free exercise of the right to travel upon the roadways (excluding commerce, which the state legislatures are correct in regulating), is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution, as well as most state constitutions.
Our system of law dictates that there is only one way to remove a right belonging to the people. That is by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.
Some of the confusion in our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted, and opted into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are legally regulated by state law, and must obtain permits, registrations, insurance, etc.
Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling in mind before issuing citations:
"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S., F.2d 486, 489.
Reprinted from a special edition of "Aid and Abet" bulletin #11, P.O. Box 8787, Phoenix, AZ. 85066, by Officer Jack McLamb.
It is important to be aware of a different point of view about traffic since a near police state exists on America’s highways today. Traffic Support Services’ goal is to reestablish the RIGHT to travel!
#7 Tax_Counsel Platinum Contributor
'smokie, on 13 Aug 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:
Legislators, police officers, and court officials are being made aware that there are court decisions disproving the opinion that traveling is a privilege that requires government approval.
However, not a single case that is quoted in that article deals with the specific issue of whether a state may require a license for persons to drive on the public roads. The problem with articles like the one you posted is that they take quotes from cases out of context that sound good in supporting the claim they wish to make. Simply quoting some general statements about the right to travel from cases that do not address specifically the issue of drivers' licenses is lousy legal research and argument when there are, in fact, cases that are right on point, but I suppose is good enough to convince some members of the public who have no experience in the law.
When you look the cases in which the specific issue was whether the "right to travel" is violated by driver's licensing laws, the uniform opinion of the courts is that they do not. For example, the 7th Circuit said recently:
But Dean has not articulated reasons to support his unexplained argument that state licensure and registration requirements violate the right to travel, see Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9). This is not surprising because such an argument is meritless. Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1205-06 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that there is no “fundamental right to drive” and affirming dismissal of complaint based on state's refusal to renew citizen's driver's license); Hallstrom v. City of Garden City, 991 F.2d 1473, 1477 (9th Cir.1993) (finding no constitutional violation where valid Idaho law required driver's license, and plaintiff was detained for not having one). Without vehicle licenses, Dean is denied only “a single mode of transportation-in a car driven by himself,” see Miller, 176 F.3d at 1204, and this does not impermissibly burden his right to travel. Id. Accordingly, the district court's judgment dismissing Dean's case is AFFIRMED.
Matthew v. Honish, 233 F. App'x 563, 564 (7th Cir. 2007).
It is odd, isn't it, that the article didn't actually examine the cases right on point but instead chose only to quote from cases that don't deal with the license requirement? That should tell you a lot about the quality of the article.Those who try to challenge their tickets for driving without a license on the basis that the license requirement is an unconstitutional burden on the right to travel will be disappointed when they find the court rules against them, just as I'm sure Mr. Matthew was disappointed when the 7th Circuit ruled against his argument on that very point
#8 smokiepost New Member
'Tax_Counsel', on 13 Aug 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:
However, not a single case that is quoted in that article deals with the specific issue of whether a state may require a license for persons to drive on the public roads. The problem with articles like the one you posted is that they take quotes from cases out of context that sound good in supporting the claim they wish to make. Simply quoting some general statements about the right to travel from cases that do not address specifically the issue of drivers' licenses is lousy legal research and argument when there are, in fact, cases that are right on point, but I suppose is good enough to convince some members of the public who have no experience in the law.
When you look the cases in which the specific issue was whether the "right to travel" is violated by driver's licensing laws, the uniform opinion of the courts is that they do not. For example, the 7th Circuit said recently:
But Dean has not articulated reasons to support his unexplained argument that state licensure and registration requirements violate the right to travel, see Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9). This is not surprising because such an argument is meritless. Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1205-06 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that there is no “fundamental right to drive” and affirming dismissal of complaint based on state's refusal to renew citizen's driver's license); Hallstrom v. City of Garden City, 991 F.2d 1473, 1477 (9th Cir.1993) (finding no constitutional violation where valid Idaho law required driver's license, and plaintiff was detained for not having one). Without vehicle licenses, Dean is denied only “a single mode of transportation-in a car driven by himself,” see Miller, 176 F.3d at 1204, and this does not impermissibly burden his right to travel. Id. Accordingly, the district court's judgment dismissing Dean's case is AFFIRMED.
Matthew v. Honish, 233 F. App'x 563, 564 (7th Cir. 2007).
It is odd, isn't it, that the article didn't actually examine the cases right on point but instead chose only to quote from cases that don't deal with the license requirement? That should tell you a lot about the quality of the article.Those who try to challenge their tickets for driving without a license on the basis that the license requirement is an unconstitutional burden on the right to travel will be disappointed when they find the court rules against them, just as I'm sure Mr. Matthew was disappointed when the 7th Circuit ruled against his argument on that very point
Thank you for your consideration. With all due respect, the article is quite clear to many of the unwashed masses, of which I humbly remain, the right to travel unrestricted under common law, which is protected by the Constitution. However, to your point of States requirement of licensing...
Our system of law dictates that there is only one way to remove a right belonging to the people. That is by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.
Some of the confusion in our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted, and opted into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are legally regulated by state law, and must obtain permits, registrations, insurance, etc.
State statutes and codes apply only to those who waive their rights under common law. Sounds like you have waived your rights and signed on with the state. Thats ok with me goodman, though I wonder if you knew you were waiving your rights as a freeman would you still consent? Just curious.
#9 GuessAgain Platinum Contributor
The article is incorrect from its premise to its conclusion. As was already explained, the cases cited do not support the position taken and the conclusion is pure fantasy when it comes to what the law is. The right to travel does NOT mean the right to travel by motor vehicle if you are not properly licensed just as you cannot travel by plane or bus or train if you didn't pay for the ticket.
#10 Tax_Counsel Platinum Contributor
smokiepost, on 13 Aug 2012 - 2:31 PM, said:
Our system of law dictates that there is only one way to remove a right belonging to the people. That is by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.
Some of the confusion in our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted, and opted into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are legally regulated by state law, and must obtain permits, registrations, insurance, etc.
The problem is, that premise is wrong — the case law does not support the idea that drivers' licenses are only required for those that somehow "waived" some asserted right to unrestricted travel. Note that the article did not cite a single case supporting the quote you provided above. Instead, that's merely the author's wishful thinking. I cited a case on point — the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit said that licensing laws are not an unconstitutional burden on the right to travel. The Court did not condition that on any "waiver" of the right to travel. I could cite a number of other cases that have reached the same conclusion. The article you quoted is, quite simply, wrong. Anyone who has truly studied the case law in the matter would know that. As I said before, it is very telling that the article you quoted relies on cases that are not about whether licenses constitutionally restrict the right to travel and ignores the cases that address that very point. Why would someone who has really done the research and is writing an unbiased view of the law completely ignore the cases that are actually on point? My answer to that: he's not interested in presenting what the law really is, but instead trying to put out a view of what he wishes the law were.
#11 bill888 New Member
Free people have a common law and constitutional right to travel on the roads and highways that are provided by their government for that purpose. Licensing of drivers cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of an inalienable right;(2) In England in 1215, the right to travel was enshrined in Article 42 of Magna Carta:It shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water, .(3) Where rights secured by the Constitution of the United States are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate these rights. The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon an individual because of this exercise of constitutional rights;(4) American citizens have the inalienable right to use the roads and highways unrestricted in any manner so long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. The government, by requiring the people to obtain drivers' licenses, is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law and constitutional right to travel; (5) In Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Potter Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that the right to travel "is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association...it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." The Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; and we hold that the right to travel is so fundamental that the Framers thought it was unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights;(6) The right to travel upon the public highways is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will but the common right which every citizen has under his or her right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his or her inclination along the public highways or in public places while conducting himself or herself in an orderly and decent manner; and(7) Thus, the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the citizens' right to travel upon the public roads by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive the right and convert that right into a privilege.
#12 LegalwriterOne Platinum Contributor
I see you've gone to the sites that misread case law and use parsed quotations to make it seem as if the case supports their position and posted their argument, which, as you've already been told is wrong. Yes, there is a right to travel. What there isn't, is a right to travel by driving a car when you are not licensed. Licensing drivers so the state and its citizens are guaranteed that those on the road have met a basic standard of ability and knowledge is a compelling state interest. Public safety and the safety of citizens when traveling is a compelling government interest. Where no citizen is denied a license based upon citizenship and where any citizen who meets the basic ability and knowledge requirements is licensed, it's not unconstitutional. The government can lawfully and constitutionally impose restrictions where there is a compelling state interest, be it requiring vehicle drivers to be licensed or gun purchasers to undergo a background check or air travelers to show a valid ID at the ticket counter....
#13 Tax_Counsel Platinum Contributor
bill888, on 26 Sept 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:
Free people have a common law and constitutional right to travel on the roads and highways that are provided by their government for that purpose. Licensing of drivers cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of an inalienable right.
No, that premise is wrong. Licensing does not require surrendering an “inalienable right.” Every right secured by the Constitution is subject to some limitations. Court decisions that directly address the issue have consistently said that requiring a license to drive on the public roadways does not violate the right to travel. Unfortunately, there are some web sites out there with bad information on the subject, and I see you've been reading some of those. Those sites make a number of errors, notably citing law that has no relevance to the issue and at the same time ignoring law that is directly on point. Your post is a great example. You cite the Magna Carta and English common law, neither of which have any bearing on the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. At the same time, you’ve not addressed the various U.S. court decisions that have upheld licensing laws, like the decision I mentioned earlier in this thread by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, that specifically stated: “But Dean has not articulated reasons to support his unexplained argument that state licensure and registration requirements violate the right to travel, see Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9). This is not surprising because such an argument is meritless.”
It’s not a suprise to me that those sites use arguments like the Magna Carta that don’t apply to the issue but do not discuss the actual court decisions that do apply: if they did, they’d be forced to concede that their argument that a state cannot require driver’s licenses is a failure — the courts have rejected that contention over and over again.
#14 choosefreedom New Member
"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 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 179." So I guess this is legalese and doesn't mean what I think it says? I have read been taught that common/inalienable rights can not be made subject to licensing, because if they are they become privileges not rights. The definition of a licence according to Blacks is "permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal" I dare say God given rights are not "otherwise illegal". Rights cannot be converted to privileges or they are not rights.
#15 choosefreedom New Member
NOJURISDICTION12 - 11:16 PM, said:
can anyone tell me how one would go about this "right to travel" without major problems?
any thoughts would help thank you
Google & youtube are the best, on this site you can look up case law but don't look for any help from professionally indoctrinated lawyers they make their living with today's legal jungle and most will never admit their first allegiance is to the court not you the defendant/client. Do your own research and use this site to look up the case law and you should be good to go.
#16 pg1067 Platinum Contributor
choosefreedom, on 17 Oct 2013 - 11:22 AM, said:
So I guess this is legalese and doesn't mean what I think it says?
If you think it means that a state may not constitutionally require you to have a driver's license in order to operate a motor vehicle on public roads, yes.
By the way, it's worth pointing out that the case you cited is binding authority only in the state in which it was decided (GA, SC, NC, VA, or WV -- I can't tell which googling the case simply produces a bunch of crackpot nonsense, none of which properly cite the case by including the reference to the state in which it was decided).
#17 LegalwriterOne Platinum Contributor
That's because the citation is incorrect. It's Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 155 Va. 367 (Va. 09/12/1930). The holding also doesn't remotely support the argument it's being used for (which is no surprise). The case involved the city having an ordinance which gave the chief of police the power to revoke a person's permit to drive in that city. Mr. Thompson had the required permit to drive his car and police chief, Smith, revoked it under a provision in the city code that gave him basically the unfettered discretion to do so. With regard to the right of the government to require licensing or permits to drive, what the Virginia Supreme Court held was "The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions." At 378.
#18 NeverForget1776 New Member
NOTE: I realize that an answer to the below is speculative and that most who work within the law do not like to deal in “what ifs” and or speculative scenarios however once something has been restricted or banned by an act of government it is then more often than not too late to do anything about it. That’s not to say no act of government is ever reversed but that it is rare.
Q: If my right to travel without the use of a motorized vehicle of any kind is Constitutionally guaranteed as many of you have stated then what prevents the state (or government at any level) from requiring licensing to travel on these same roads by any non-motorized means including but not limited to my own body or more precisely my legs? Before replying along the lines of “that’s an absurd statement” please keep in mind that in recent years the government at many levels has tried to enact laws, statues, ordinances for a variety of acts that just a few years back would have been perceived as being absurd. This would include both unsuccessful and successful passing of these restrictions. Failed examples include banning large sized sodas. Successful examples include making it illegal to catch and retain use of rain water that falls on your property.
With regards to the question of can one travel on public roads without a government provided license I would ask this, if it’s not legal to do this then why would a law enforcement officer such as a police officer, let an unlicensed driver who has no tags on their vehicle and who is driving on public streets, go about their way without even so much as a warning ticket or citation after the officer has pulled the individual and knows that they are traveling in an automotive vehicle without a license or tags? While some might be tempted to say it was because the officer was cutting the guy a break please keep in mind that such an explanation sounds far more ludicrous then the statement that we can travel on public roads with a government issued license.
Legitimate and logical comments only please. I’m not looking to argue that you are wrong about not having the right to travel via motorized vehicle on public roads.
Thank You
#19 Fallen Platinum Contributor
What is "legitimate" or "logical" is a very subjective thing, so that kind of dictate seems odd.
There are laws as it relates to people traveling highways by "non-motorized means, including but not limited to [your] ... body."
What prevents a legislature from passing a licensure requirement would be, presumably, the desire to enact such a statute.
"... I would ask this, if it’s not legal to do this then why would a law enforcement officer such as a police officer, let an unlicensed driver who has no tags on their vehicle and who is driving on public streets, go about their way without even so much as a warning ticket or citation after the officer has pulled the individual and knows that they are traveling in an automotive vehicle without a license or tags?"
You'd have to ask the law enforcement officer; they have discretion whether to issue citations.
"While some might be tempted to say it was because the officer was cutting the guy a break please keep in mind that such an explanation sounds far more ludicrous then the statement that we can travel on public roads with a government issued license."
Sorry, but this is fairly garbled; you may want to take another crack at what it is you intended to say.
I'll echo PG's advisory "warning" with a twist: (Many) legal issues are complicated. Explanations and comments here might not fully identify or explain the ramifications of your particular problem. I do not give legal advice as such (and such is impermissible here at any rate). Comments are based on personal knowledge and experience and legal info gleaned over a quarter century, and every state has differing laws on and avenues to address most topics. If you need legal advice, you need to consult (and pay) a professional so that you may have someone to hold accountable. Acting on personal and informational advice from a stranger on the internet is a bad idea -- at least not without your own thorough due dilience/research and confirmation as it applies to your situation.
#20 NeverForget1776 New Member
Fallen, on 14 Mar 2014 - 08:19 AM, said:
What is "legitimate" or "logical" is a very subjective thing, so that kind of dictate seems odd.
There are laws as it relates to people traveling highways by "non-motorized means, including but not limited to [your] ... body."
What prevents a legislature from passing a licensure requirement would be, presumably, the desire to enact such a statute.
"... I would ask this, if it’s not legal to do this then why would a law enforcement officer such as a police officer, let an unlicensed driver who has no tags on their vehicle and who is driving on public streets, go about their way without even so much as a warning ticket or citation after the officer has pulled the individual and knows that they are traveling in an automotive vehicle without a license or tags?"
You'd have to ask the law enforcement officer; they have discretion whether to issue citations.
"While some might be tempted to say it was because the officer was cutting the guy a break please keep in mind that such an explanation sounds far more ludicrous then the statement that we can travel on public roads with a government issued license."
Sorry, but this is fairly garbled; you may want to take another crack at what it is you intended to say.
I will attempt to make an non-garbled version of this statement and address your comment about asking the officer.
In this day (the year 2000 and up) police officers in all major cities and in most suburban areas have ticket quotas. These quotas have been increased in more recent years to increase revenue for the local governments due to harder economic times that have hit most areas.
Based on that scenario (where there are ticket quotas) it is extremely difficult to believe that any office who has pulled someone over would then let that same person go without a citation when the individual operating the automotive vehicle has no government issued license and no tags/plates anywhere on their vehicle. It would be equivalent to allowing a drunk driver to continue driving the same as if they had not been pulled over by the officer.
Is that clear enough?
Thank You
- Members
- 1 posts
can anyone tell me how one would go about this "right to travel" without major problems?
any thoughts would help thank you
#2 LegalwriterOne Platinum Contributor
- Members
- 5,306 posts
The right to travel does not mean the right to travel by driving a motor vehicle if you are not properly licensed. The websites and persons who tell you differently are wrong.
#3 pg1067 Platinum Contributor
- Members
- -48,580 posts
- Posted 08 August 2012 - 06:58 AM
- Your question -- specifically, "go about this 'right to travel'" -- makes little or no sense.
#4 Guest_FindLaw_Amir_*
- Guests
Could you please elaborate a bit more on your post?
#5 Tax_Counsel Platinum Contributor
- Members
- 18,079 posts
'NOJURISDICTION', on 07 Aug 2012 - 11:16 PM, said:
can anyone tell me how one would go about this "right to travel" without major problems?
any thoughts would help thank you.
Yes, I can tell you how to travel on the public roads without major problems: have in your possession a valid driver's license, ensure the vehicle is properly insured, and follow the state and local traffic laws.
The right to travel does not mean that you may drive a vehicle on a public road without a valid driver's license. Those web sites that assert otherwise are giving you bad information.
#6 smokiepost New Member
- Members
- 4 posts
Free Enterprise Society
Traveling is a Right
For many years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state governments in the form of a permit or drivers license.
Legislators, police officers, and court officials are being made aware that there are court decisions disproving the opinion that traveling is a privilege that requires government approval.
"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 22.
("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement: stop lights, signs, etc.)
"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 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 179.
It could not be stated more conclusively that citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restrictions (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293.
As hard as it is for those in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does 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 file for drivers license, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, roadblocks, etc. are restricting and therefore violating the peoples’ common law right to travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. The American Citizens and Lawmen Association, in conjunction with the U.S. Federal Law Research Center are presently involved in studies in several areas involving questions on constitutional law. One of the many areas under review is that of the citizen’s right to travel. A spokesman stated in an interview:
"Upon researching this subject over many months, substantial case law has presented itself that completely substantiates the position that the ‘right to travel unrestricted upon the nations highways’ is and always has been a fundamental right of every Citizen."
This means that the beliefs and opinions of our state legislators, the courts, and those of us involved in the law enforcement profession have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that U.S. case law is overwhelming. To restrict in any fashion the movement of the individual American, in free exercise of the right to travel upon the roadways (excluding commerce, which the state legislatures are correct in regulating), is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution, as well as most state constitutions.
Our system of law dictates that there is only one way to remove a right belonging to the people. That is by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.
Some of the confusion in our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted, and opted into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are legally regulated by state law, and must obtain permits, registrations, insurance, etc.
Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling in mind before issuing citations:
"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S., F.2d 486, 489.
Reprinted from a special edition of "Aid and Abet" bulletin #11, P.O. Box 8787, Phoenix, AZ. 85066, by Officer Jack McLamb.
It is important to be aware of a different point of view about traffic since a near police state exists on America’s highways today. Traffic Support Services’ goal is to reestablish the RIGHT to travel!
#7 Tax_Counsel Platinum Contributor
- Members
- 18,079 posts
'smokie, on 13 Aug 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:
Legislators, police officers, and court officials are being made aware that there are court decisions disproving the opinion that traveling is a privilege that requires government approval.
However, not a single case that is quoted in that article deals with the specific issue of whether a state may require a license for persons to drive on the public roads. The problem with articles like the one you posted is that they take quotes from cases out of context that sound good in supporting the claim they wish to make. Simply quoting some general statements about the right to travel from cases that do not address specifically the issue of drivers' licenses is lousy legal research and argument when there are, in fact, cases that are right on point, but I suppose is good enough to convince some members of the public who have no experience in the law.
When you look the cases in which the specific issue was whether the "right to travel" is violated by driver's licensing laws, the uniform opinion of the courts is that they do not. For example, the 7th Circuit said recently:
But Dean has not articulated reasons to support his unexplained argument that state licensure and registration requirements violate the right to travel, see Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9). This is not surprising because such an argument is meritless. Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1205-06 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that there is no “fundamental right to drive” and affirming dismissal of complaint based on state's refusal to renew citizen's driver's license); Hallstrom v. City of Garden City, 991 F.2d 1473, 1477 (9th Cir.1993) (finding no constitutional violation where valid Idaho law required driver's license, and plaintiff was detained for not having one). Without vehicle licenses, Dean is denied only “a single mode of transportation-in a car driven by himself,” see Miller, 176 F.3d at 1204, and this does not impermissibly burden his right to travel. Id. Accordingly, the district court's judgment dismissing Dean's case is AFFIRMED.
Matthew v. Honish, 233 F. App'x 563, 564 (7th Cir. 2007).
It is odd, isn't it, that the article didn't actually examine the cases right on point but instead chose only to quote from cases that don't deal with the license requirement? That should tell you a lot about the quality of the article.Those who try to challenge their tickets for driving without a license on the basis that the license requirement is an unconstitutional burden on the right to travel will be disappointed when they find the court rules against them, just as I'm sure Mr. Matthew was disappointed when the 7th Circuit ruled against his argument on that very point
#8 smokiepost New Member
- Members
- 4 posts
'Tax_Counsel', on 13 Aug 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:
However, not a single case that is quoted in that article deals with the specific issue of whether a state may require a license for persons to drive on the public roads. The problem with articles like the one you posted is that they take quotes from cases out of context that sound good in supporting the claim they wish to make. Simply quoting some general statements about the right to travel from cases that do not address specifically the issue of drivers' licenses is lousy legal research and argument when there are, in fact, cases that are right on point, but I suppose is good enough to convince some members of the public who have no experience in the law.
When you look the cases in which the specific issue was whether the "right to travel" is violated by driver's licensing laws, the uniform opinion of the courts is that they do not. For example, the 7th Circuit said recently:
But Dean has not articulated reasons to support his unexplained argument that state licensure and registration requirements violate the right to travel, see Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9). This is not surprising because such an argument is meritless. Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1205-06 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that there is no “fundamental right to drive” and affirming dismissal of complaint based on state's refusal to renew citizen's driver's license); Hallstrom v. City of Garden City, 991 F.2d 1473, 1477 (9th Cir.1993) (finding no constitutional violation where valid Idaho law required driver's license, and plaintiff was detained for not having one). Without vehicle licenses, Dean is denied only “a single mode of transportation-in a car driven by himself,” see Miller, 176 F.3d at 1204, and this does not impermissibly burden his right to travel. Id. Accordingly, the district court's judgment dismissing Dean's case is AFFIRMED.
Matthew v. Honish, 233 F. App'x 563, 564 (7th Cir. 2007).
It is odd, isn't it, that the article didn't actually examine the cases right on point but instead chose only to quote from cases that don't deal with the license requirement? That should tell you a lot about the quality of the article.Those who try to challenge their tickets for driving without a license on the basis that the license requirement is an unconstitutional burden on the right to travel will be disappointed when they find the court rules against them, just as I'm sure Mr. Matthew was disappointed when the 7th Circuit ruled against his argument on that very point
Thank you for your consideration. With all due respect, the article is quite clear to many of the unwashed masses, of which I humbly remain, the right to travel unrestricted under common law, which is protected by the Constitution. However, to your point of States requirement of licensing...
Our system of law dictates that there is only one way to remove a right belonging to the people. That is by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.
Some of the confusion in our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted, and opted into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are legally regulated by state law, and must obtain permits, registrations, insurance, etc.
State statutes and codes apply only to those who waive their rights under common law. Sounds like you have waived your rights and signed on with the state. Thats ok with me goodman, though I wonder if you knew you were waiving your rights as a freeman would you still consent? Just curious.
#9 GuessAgain Platinum Contributor
- Members
- 12,099 posts
The article is incorrect from its premise to its conclusion. As was already explained, the cases cited do not support the position taken and the conclusion is pure fantasy when it comes to what the law is. The right to travel does NOT mean the right to travel by motor vehicle if you are not properly licensed just as you cannot travel by plane or bus or train if you didn't pay for the ticket.
#10 Tax_Counsel Platinum Contributor
- Members
- 18,079 posts
smokiepost, on 13 Aug 2012 - 2:31 PM, said:
Our system of law dictates that there is only one way to remove a right belonging to the people. That is by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.
Some of the confusion in our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted, and opted into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are legally regulated by state law, and must obtain permits, registrations, insurance, etc.
The problem is, that premise is wrong — the case law does not support the idea that drivers' licenses are only required for those that somehow "waived" some asserted right to unrestricted travel. Note that the article did not cite a single case supporting the quote you provided above. Instead, that's merely the author's wishful thinking. I cited a case on point — the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit said that licensing laws are not an unconstitutional burden on the right to travel. The Court did not condition that on any "waiver" of the right to travel. I could cite a number of other cases that have reached the same conclusion. The article you quoted is, quite simply, wrong. Anyone who has truly studied the case law in the matter would know that. As I said before, it is very telling that the article you quoted relies on cases that are not about whether licenses constitutionally restrict the right to travel and ignores the cases that address that very point. Why would someone who has really done the research and is writing an unbiased view of the law completely ignore the cases that are actually on point? My answer to that: he's not interested in presenting what the law really is, but instead trying to put out a view of what he wishes the law were.
#11 bill888 New Member
- Members
- 1 posts
Free people have a common law and constitutional right to travel on the roads and highways that are provided by their government for that purpose. Licensing of drivers cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of an inalienable right;(2) In England in 1215, the right to travel was enshrined in Article 42 of Magna Carta:It shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water, .(3) Where rights secured by the Constitution of the United States are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate these rights. The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon an individual because of this exercise of constitutional rights;(4) American citizens have the inalienable right to use the roads and highways unrestricted in any manner so long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. The government, by requiring the people to obtain drivers' licenses, is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law and constitutional right to travel; (5) In Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Potter Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that the right to travel "is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association...it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." The Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; and we hold that the right to travel is so fundamental that the Framers thought it was unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights;(6) The right to travel upon the public highways is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will but the common right which every citizen has under his or her right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his or her inclination along the public highways or in public places while conducting himself or herself in an orderly and decent manner; and(7) Thus, the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the citizens' right to travel upon the public roads by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive the right and convert that right into a privilege.
#12 LegalwriterOne Platinum Contributor
- Members
- 5,306 posts
I see you've gone to the sites that misread case law and use parsed quotations to make it seem as if the case supports their position and posted their argument, which, as you've already been told is wrong. Yes, there is a right to travel. What there isn't, is a right to travel by driving a car when you are not licensed. Licensing drivers so the state and its citizens are guaranteed that those on the road have met a basic standard of ability and knowledge is a compelling state interest. Public safety and the safety of citizens when traveling is a compelling government interest. Where no citizen is denied a license based upon citizenship and where any citizen who meets the basic ability and knowledge requirements is licensed, it's not unconstitutional. The government can lawfully and constitutionally impose restrictions where there is a compelling state interest, be it requiring vehicle drivers to be licensed or gun purchasers to undergo a background check or air travelers to show a valid ID at the ticket counter....
#13 Tax_Counsel Platinum Contributor
- Members
- 18,079 posts
bill888, on 26 Sept 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:
Free people have a common law and constitutional right to travel on the roads and highways that are provided by their government for that purpose. Licensing of drivers cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of an inalienable right.
No, that premise is wrong. Licensing does not require surrendering an “inalienable right.” Every right secured by the Constitution is subject to some limitations. Court decisions that directly address the issue have consistently said that requiring a license to drive on the public roadways does not violate the right to travel. Unfortunately, there are some web sites out there with bad information on the subject, and I see you've been reading some of those. Those sites make a number of errors, notably citing law that has no relevance to the issue and at the same time ignoring law that is directly on point. Your post is a great example. You cite the Magna Carta and English common law, neither of which have any bearing on the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. At the same time, you’ve not addressed the various U.S. court decisions that have upheld licensing laws, like the decision I mentioned earlier in this thread by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, that specifically stated: “But Dean has not articulated reasons to support his unexplained argument that state licensure and registration requirements violate the right to travel, see Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9). This is not surprising because such an argument is meritless.”
It’s not a suprise to me that those sites use arguments like the Magna Carta that don’t apply to the issue but do not discuss the actual court decisions that do apply: if they did, they’d be forced to concede that their argument that a state cannot require driver’s licenses is a failure — the courts have rejected that contention over and over again.
#14 choosefreedom New Member
- Members
- 2 posts
"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 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 179." So I guess this is legalese and doesn't mean what I think it says? I have read been taught that common/inalienable rights can not be made subject to licensing, because if they are they become privileges not rights. The definition of a licence according to Blacks is "permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal" I dare say God given rights are not "otherwise illegal". Rights cannot be converted to privileges or they are not rights.
#15 choosefreedom New Member
- Members
- 2 posts
NOJURISDICTION12 - 11:16 PM, said:
can anyone tell me how one would go about this "right to travel" without major problems?
any thoughts would help thank you
Google & youtube are the best, on this site you can look up case law but don't look for any help from professionally indoctrinated lawyers they make their living with today's legal jungle and most will never admit their first allegiance is to the court not you the defendant/client. Do your own research and use this site to look up the case law and you should be good to go.
#16 pg1067 Platinum Contributor
- Members
- 48,580 posts
choosefreedom, on 17 Oct 2013 - 11:22 AM, said:
So I guess this is legalese and doesn't mean what I think it says?
If you think it means that a state may not constitutionally require you to have a driver's license in order to operate a motor vehicle on public roads, yes.
By the way, it's worth pointing out that the case you cited is binding authority only in the state in which it was decided (GA, SC, NC, VA, or WV -- I can't tell which googling the case simply produces a bunch of crackpot nonsense, none of which properly cite the case by including the reference to the state in which it was decided).
#17 LegalwriterOne Platinum Contributor
- Members
- 5,306 posts
That's because the citation is incorrect. It's Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 155 Va. 367 (Va. 09/12/1930). The holding also doesn't remotely support the argument it's being used for (which is no surprise). The case involved the city having an ordinance which gave the chief of police the power to revoke a person's permit to drive in that city. Mr. Thompson had the required permit to drive his car and police chief, Smith, revoked it under a provision in the city code that gave him basically the unfettered discretion to do so. With regard to the right of the government to require licensing or permits to drive, what the Virginia Supreme Court held was "The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions." At 378.
#18 NeverForget1776 New Member
- Members
- 4 posts
NOTE: I realize that an answer to the below is speculative and that most who work within the law do not like to deal in “what ifs” and or speculative scenarios however once something has been restricted or banned by an act of government it is then more often than not too late to do anything about it. That’s not to say no act of government is ever reversed but that it is rare.
Q: If my right to travel without the use of a motorized vehicle of any kind is Constitutionally guaranteed as many of you have stated then what prevents the state (or government at any level) from requiring licensing to travel on these same roads by any non-motorized means including but not limited to my own body or more precisely my legs? Before replying along the lines of “that’s an absurd statement” please keep in mind that in recent years the government at many levels has tried to enact laws, statues, ordinances for a variety of acts that just a few years back would have been perceived as being absurd. This would include both unsuccessful and successful passing of these restrictions. Failed examples include banning large sized sodas. Successful examples include making it illegal to catch and retain use of rain water that falls on your property.
With regards to the question of can one travel on public roads without a government provided license I would ask this, if it’s not legal to do this then why would a law enforcement officer such as a police officer, let an unlicensed driver who has no tags on their vehicle and who is driving on public streets, go about their way without even so much as a warning ticket or citation after the officer has pulled the individual and knows that they are traveling in an automotive vehicle without a license or tags? While some might be tempted to say it was because the officer was cutting the guy a break please keep in mind that such an explanation sounds far more ludicrous then the statement that we can travel on public roads with a government issued license.
Legitimate and logical comments only please. I’m not looking to argue that you are wrong about not having the right to travel via motorized vehicle on public roads.
Thank You
#19 Fallen Platinum Contributor
- Members
- 60,841 posts
What is "legitimate" or "logical" is a very subjective thing, so that kind of dictate seems odd.
There are laws as it relates to people traveling highways by "non-motorized means, including but not limited to [your] ... body."
What prevents a legislature from passing a licensure requirement would be, presumably, the desire to enact such a statute.
"... I would ask this, if it’s not legal to do this then why would a law enforcement officer such as a police officer, let an unlicensed driver who has no tags on their vehicle and who is driving on public streets, go about their way without even so much as a warning ticket or citation after the officer has pulled the individual and knows that they are traveling in an automotive vehicle without a license or tags?"
You'd have to ask the law enforcement officer; they have discretion whether to issue citations.
"While some might be tempted to say it was because the officer was cutting the guy a break please keep in mind that such an explanation sounds far more ludicrous then the statement that we can travel on public roads with a government issued license."
Sorry, but this is fairly garbled; you may want to take another crack at what it is you intended to say.
I'll echo PG's advisory "warning" with a twist: (Many) legal issues are complicated. Explanations and comments here might not fully identify or explain the ramifications of your particular problem. I do not give legal advice as such (and such is impermissible here at any rate). Comments are based on personal knowledge and experience and legal info gleaned over a quarter century, and every state has differing laws on and avenues to address most topics. If you need legal advice, you need to consult (and pay) a professional so that you may have someone to hold accountable. Acting on personal and informational advice from a stranger on the internet is a bad idea -- at least not without your own thorough due dilience/research and confirmation as it applies to your situation.
#20 NeverForget1776 New Member
- Members
- 4 posts
Fallen, on 14 Mar 2014 - 08:19 AM, said:
What is "legitimate" or "logical" is a very subjective thing, so that kind of dictate seems odd.
There are laws as it relates to people traveling highways by "non-motorized means, including but not limited to [your] ... body."
What prevents a legislature from passing a licensure requirement would be, presumably, the desire to enact such a statute.
"... I would ask this, if it’s not legal to do this then why would a law enforcement officer such as a police officer, let an unlicensed driver who has no tags on their vehicle and who is driving on public streets, go about their way without even so much as a warning ticket or citation after the officer has pulled the individual and knows that they are traveling in an automotive vehicle without a license or tags?"
You'd have to ask the law enforcement officer; they have discretion whether to issue citations.
"While some might be tempted to say it was because the officer was cutting the guy a break please keep in mind that such an explanation sounds far more ludicrous then the statement that we can travel on public roads with a government issued license."
Sorry, but this is fairly garbled; you may want to take another crack at what it is you intended to say.
I will attempt to make an non-garbled version of this statement and address your comment about asking the officer.
In this day (the year 2000 and up) police officers in all major cities and in most suburban areas have ticket quotas. These quotas have been increased in more recent years to increase revenue for the local governments due to harder economic times that have hit most areas.
Based on that scenario (where there are ticket quotas) it is extremely difficult to believe that any office who has pulled someone over would then let that same person go without a citation when the individual operating the automotive vehicle has no government issued license and no tags/plates anywhere on their vehicle. It would be equivalent to allowing a drunk driver to continue driving the same as if they had not been pulled over by the officer.
Is that clear enough?
Thank You