Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean
My "so-what" light is on.
All that says is the use of public roads can't be arbitrarily denied (i.e., for political or discriminatory reasons such as allowing one company to use it but not another) nor can a toll be applied to their use. No part of that precludes the state's requirements for someone to have a driver's license (demonstrating you are who you are and you passed some minimum qualifications), maintain automobile registration (for property taxation purposes) or insurance (as proof of financial responsibility in the event you damage someone else's property).
If you get in trouble on the road, this kind of BS will only make it more expensive and if you push it far enough, you'll be on foot, sans car and bitching and moaning that the argument didn't work because the judicial system is at fault.
|
The point of the citation is to show that the Right to travel the roads, is a
RIGHT, not a privilege as many states try to claim. The Rights are the
Inherent rights of mankind which
come from Almighty God, according to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Thus, they are not privilege, which can be taken at the will of the state. I am glad to know that there is
no disagreement over this issue, JRB and Shoonra. We won't need to discuss it again.
No Injury ? Can Courts Adjudicate?
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/court/...html#post65868
As a Right, it cannot be legislated, or taxed, away!
Quote:
PACKARD v. BANTON, 264 U.S. 140 (1924)
The streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the public in the ordinary way. Their use for the purposes of gain is special and extraordinary, and, generally at least, may be prohibited or conditioned as the Legislature deems proper. [Otherwise, it may not be prohibited or conditioned as the Legislature deems proper, it is a Right.]
[…]Moreover, a distinction must be observed between the regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right and one carried on by government sufferance or permission. In the latter case the power to exclude altogether generally includes the lesser power to condition and may justify a degree of regulation not admissible in the former.
|
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=264+&page=140
Quote:
Sigler vs Berrigan [410 US 902]: “The right to travel is a peripheral right of every citizen under the First Amendment.”;
Worthy v. Herter, 270 F.2d 905, 908 (D.C.Cir. 1959)("The right to travel is a part of the right to liberty");
Tetalman v. Holiday Inn, 500 F.Supp. 217, 218 (N.D.Ga. 1980)(The "constitutionally protected right to travel ... is basically the right to travel unrestricted by unreasonable government interference or regulation");
People v. Horton, 14 CalApp.3d 930, 92 Cal.Rptr. 666, 668 (1971)("the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference ... is a fundamental constitutional right")
|
What is a
license?
Quote:
|
license, n. 1. A revocable permission to commit some act that would otherwise be unlawful… Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition.
|
Now we see that licenses are revoked for
whatever reason the states wishes.
Many of these reasons have nothing to do with the individual’s relationship to the road, or traveling, such as falling behind on a
child support order, etc. How can the state strip away a right on such a basis?
It cannot! There is no constitutional requirement to have licenses, while operating in a private not-for-hire capacity. Now the states are planning on putting
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) in the license. This is just more tyranny. There are about 40,000 deaths on the public roads annually, how have licenses made the road safer?
National ID...Mark of the Beast...READ THIS!
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/end-da...east-read.html
HR 418- A National ID Bill Masquerading as Immigration Reform
http://famguardian.org/forums/index....ic=361&hl=1984
The states can regulate the roads, such as stop signs, and traffic lights, for public safety.
If identification is needed, in the case of accident, injury, or being stopped based on
probable cause (crime); an individual may give an affidavit. Witnesses may come forward. The victim may identify the suspect, etc. There is no need for a license. An affidavit can be used to prove vehicle ownership, also.
I see no reason that justifies the state forcing an individual to contract with another (private) party for insurance, while traveling in his/her private capacity. There is no constitutional requirement that I can find.
Quote:
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
AMENDMENT TEN
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
|
For more information:
Driver license and registration please?
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/travel...on-please.html
Right to Travel Court Cites
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/travel...urt-cites.html