06-28-2006, 06:13 PM
|
 |
Banned User
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Freedom. some call Cal.
Posts: 2,330
|
|
|
On another thread...
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by free_martha
"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by a carriage or automobile, is not a mere privilege which a City may prohibit or permit 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 579.
|
At will means somethiing. It means that if thet state has proceedure that is not arbitrarily deciding if you get to drive or not. Most states do meet this requirement. The state will only not give you a license after offering you a hearing where they tell you why your license is not happening. PLEASE do not just dismiss this "at will" since it is in virtually every cite I have seen on "right to travel" Please compare to this cite for "commercial driving"
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Scootterdog
"... For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion."
State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073;
Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171;
Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;
Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516
|
See, "not at will" and "at its discretion." These are the most overlooked terms in the driving bebate. They take alot of case out of the picture so that they don't need to keep getting cited.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by free_martha
"The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the Citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116, 125.
|
Like I said before: Due process is fulfilled by giving you a hearing AND applying the law equally and non arbitrarilly. Both of these requirement are met by the State of California
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by free_martha
"Our system of government, based upon the individuality and intelligence of the Citizen, the state does not claim to control him, except as his conduct to others, leaving him the sole judge as to all that only affects himself." Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by free_martha
'Our survey of the legal landscape as it existed in March 1989 indicates, that, in general, members of the public have no constitutional right to be protected by the State from harm inflicted by third parties. E.g., Fox v. Custis, 712 F.2d 84, 88 (4th Cir. 1983); Wells v. Walker, 852 F.2d 368, 370 (8th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1012, 109 S.Ct. 1121, 103 L.Ed.2d 184 (1989); Ketchum v. Alameda County, 811 F.2d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 1987); Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982).
|
This quote I feel is mabey taken out of context. There are alot of similar cases in California which say the same thing. HOWEVER all of these cases are referring to the individual members, That is why it says "MEMBERS of the public" and not just " the public" The state does have an obligation to protect the people as a whole. If they didn't then they would have no reason for "police powers" which every thing they pass stands upon.
I believe David Merrill posted this case: "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, through this "RIGHT" might be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 22"
I have also seen on this thread people asserting that there is no right to conduct buisness on the roads and that all case law leads to this conclusion. I have not seen this conclusion from the posts here. What I see is that there is no fundamental right to make the street your "PLACE" of buisness. It is everybody's street and you can't claim part of it as yours (IE: park and occupy it while you sell stuff on the street.") I am not saying that this contention is correct, just that it remains unproven with the current posts.
Here the law in question (The washington stat.) clearly establishes that your conduct is threatening to others.
You may not agree with what the legislature found when they found driving threatening, HOWEVER, until you dispell that the state appears to have overcome all the obsticalls that I addressed here.
|
Someone please argue the "At will" argument. Until someone does I cannot see this tactic working.
__________________
Educational and entertainment only. Nothing posted intended as legal advice. Nothing is legal advice. All responses are general in nature even if responding to a specific question. Nothing in my posts pertains to ANYONE else but me.
Hire an Attorney. 
|