Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shoonra
And again, NONE of the cases you cite involve the question of driving without a DL.
No court has ever held that driving a car (or operating a motor vehicle or whatever nomenclature you want) on the public roads was a Right. They have also said that it is a privilege that should be and is restricted to licensed drivers.
|
And once again no response concerning all of the new "CODES" (that you asked for)which state "as a matter of RIGHT" or cites concerning the governments ability to inerfere with a RIGHT,I will go out on a limb here, but maybe there are no cites for you to cite concerning these.
Originally Posted by Shoonra
"NONE of the cases you cite involve the question of driving without a DL"
Pardon me for asking, but whether or not the cases involved "driving without a license" the definition of certain words used in these cases remain constant and do not change from case to case , or do they in your world, that being the case it would make it much easier to defend your position.
Originally Posted by Shoonra
"They have also said that it is a privilege [driving] that should be and is restricted to licensed drivers."
This is exactly correct I see that we finaly agree on this point, so what is your argument about?
DRIVER
The term “driver” is contradistinction to “traveler” is defined as:
“Driver – One
employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle …”
Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed.. Pg. 940
Notice that this definition includes one who is “employed” in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this individual could not be “traveling” on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business.
Corporations engaged in mercantile equity fall under the purview of the State’s admiralty jurisdiction, and the public at large must be protected from their activities, as they (the corporations) are engaged in business for profit.
“…Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common
Right; the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former, the legislative power is
confined to regulation, as to the latter; it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a
right but a mere license of
privilege.”
Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516
It will be necessary to review early cases and legal authority in order to reach a lawfully correct theory dealing with this Right or “privilege.” We will attempt to reach a sound conclusion as to what is a “Right to use the road” and what is a “privilege to use the road”. Once reaching this determination, we shall apply those positions to modern case decision.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
Miranda vs. Arizona. 384 US 436, 491
and …
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.”
Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489
and …
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights.”
Sperer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946
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 privilege, but a
common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”
Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22;
Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934;
Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607;
25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163
and …
“The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a
common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579
So we can see that a Citizen has a Right to travel upon the public highways by automobile and the Citizen cannot be rightfully deprived of his Liberty. So where does the misconception that the use of the public road is always and only a privilege come from?
“… 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 later 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;
***mins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171;
Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;
Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516
Here the court held that a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways, but that he did not have the right to conduct business upon the highways.
On this point of law all authorities are unanimous.
“Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that 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 of business for private gain.”
Willis vs. Buck 263 P.1982;
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82
and …
“The
right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus.”
State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P.864
What is the Right of the Citizen which differs so “radically and obviously” from one who uses the highway as a place of business? Who is better to enlighten us than Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of Washington State? In State vs. City of Spokane, supra, the court also noted a very “radical and obvious” difference, but went on to explain just what the difference is:
“The former is the usual and ordinary Right of the Citizen, a common right to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary.”
and …
“This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities.”
State vs. City of Spokane, supra.
This position does not hang precariously upon only a few cases, but has been proclaimed by an impressive array of cases ranging from the state courts to the federal courts.
“the
right of the Citizen to travel upon the highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary
right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary.”
Ex Parte ****ey, (****y vs. Davis), 85 SE 781
and …
“The
right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a
common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the
right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.”
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.;
Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784
There is no dissent among various authorities as to this position. (see Am.Jur (1st(Const. Law, 329) and corresponding Am.Jur.[2nd].)
