Right to Travel Court Cites

[ezrhythm]

Property in a thing consists not merely in its ownership and possession, but in the unrestricted "RIGHT" of use, enjoyment and disposal. Anything which destroys any of these elements of property, to that extent destroys the property itself. The substantial value of property lies in its use. If the "RIGHT" of use be denied, the value of the property is annihilated and ownership is rendered a barren "RIGHT". Therefore, a law which forbids the use of a certain kind of property, strips it of an essential attribute and in actual result proscribes its ownership. (Emphasis added). See: Spann v. City of Dallas, 235 S.W. 513

These words of the Supreme Court of Texas are of particular importance in Idaho because the Idaho Supreme Court quoted the Supreme Court of Texas and used these exact words in rendering its decision in the case of O'Conner v. City of Moscow, 69 Idaho 37. The Supreme Court of Texas went on to say further;

To secure their property was one of the great ends for which men entered into society. The "RIGHT" to acquire and own property, and to deal with it and use it as the owner chooses, so long as the use harms nobody, is a natural "RIGHT". It does not owe its origin to constitutions. It existed before them. It is a part of the Citizen's natural liberty -- an expression of his freedom, guaranteed as inviolate by every American Bill of "RIGHTS". (Emphasisadded). See: Spann supra.

[Shoonra]

Thompson v. Smith acknowledged the necessity of a DL, but required something more than a local police chief's whim to revoke a DL. The other cases dealt with monopolistic practices that allowed only one bus company or one trucking company to operate on the city streets.

None of these cases disputed the right and responsibility of the state to require motorists to qualify for and have a DL.

[greatwolf75]

A license is something you obtain to carry on a specific trade, as the law dictionaries define it, or rather use to (unless you are an attorney). So please tell me what trade we are doing when we go to the store, or go visit a friend or relative? None, there is no commerce being performed.

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Thompson v. Smith acknowledged the necessity of a DL, but required something more than a local police chief's whim to revoke a DL. The other cases dealt with monopolistic practices that allowed only one bus company or one trucking company to operate on the city streets.

None of these cases disputed the right and responsibility of the state to require motorists to qualify for and have a DL.

That's right because there is no dispute for the freedom to travel in a private capacity on the highways without hinderance. Whatever the cases dealt with, the cites cover related issues too. They stand on their own.

Are you saying that case opinions only pertain to the subject argued?

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Thompson v. Smith acknowledged the necessity of a DL, but required something more than a local police chief's whim to revoke a DL. The other cases dealt with monopolistic practices that allowed only one bus company or one trucking company to operate on the city streets.

None of these cases disputed the right and responsibility of the state to require motorists to qualify for and have a DL.

Without Prejudice.

Personal liberty largely consists of the Right to locomotion – to go where and when one pleases – only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other Citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." - American Jurisprudence 1st, Constitutional Law, Section 329, p. 1135.

The alleged requirement for a "drivers license" does not apply to those who are "transporting" their own "property" upon "the public highways". Now could it be that "drivers licenses" are not provided to residents because the rights of non-residents are not privileges which may be "permitted (or licensed) or prohibited" by a State of the United States?

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by greatwolf75

A license is something you obtain to carry on a specific trade, as the law dictionaries define it, or rather use to (unless you are an attorney). So please tell me what trade we are doing when we go to the store, or go visit a friend or relative? None, there is no commerce being performed.

I think you'll find that the meaning of "license" has evolved a bit since the 19th century. To avoid quibbling, for example, Texas courts do not use the expression "Drivers License"; they call it "Motor Vehicle Operators Permit".
We now have fishing licenses (even when they clearly limit the user to a small number of catches, too small to be anything but personal and non-commercial) , hunting licenses (ditto), boating licenses and pilots licenses.
Plenty of the court decisions that make it clear that the Right to Travel does not encompass a "right" to steer a car onto the public roads without a DL involved clearly non-commercial driving. The Supreme Court clearly upheld the states in requiring a DL to use a motor vehicle on the public roads, and did not draw an exception for "non-commercial" occasions.

[greatwolf75]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I think you'll find that the meaning of "license" has evolved a bit since the 19th century. To avoid quibbling, for example, Texas courts do not use the expression "Drivers License"; they call it "Motor Vehicle Operators Permit".
We now have fishing licenses (even when they clearly limit the user to a small number of catches, too small to be anything but personal and non-commercial) , hunting licenses (ditto), boating licenses and pilots licenses.
Plenty of the court decisions that make it clear that the Right to Travel does not encompass a "right" to steer a car onto the public roads without a DL involved clearly non-commercial driving. The Supreme Court clearly upheld the states in requiring a DL to use a motor vehicle on the public roads, and did not draw an exception for "non-commercial" occasions.

Well of course the meanings have evolved, or rather been changed. The meanings of certain words get changed on a daily basis so that they can be used against people. The example you gave from Texas is a perfect example. It is being called a permit, for their benefit, however, I know that the DL still says license on it. Doing this allows them to control the system. Since when did the public not have a right to use public things. Well I guess we all need to go get our Recreational Licenses so we can play at public parks, goodness knows we don't need to operate them slides without a permit. I do agree that people would be a whole lot safer if some people were not allowed on the road.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The courts have heard about the "right to travel" a million times in DL cases. They have made it very clear that the Right to Travel is the right to start from point A and end up at point B -- but does not include a right to a specific mode of travel (e.g. airplane vs. boat vs. car) and certainly not a "right" to insist on personally controlling steering whatever vehicle is used.

So to drive does not mean to "Steer" and have the hands on the wheel. It means to make quicken. only some statute tries to change the normal definition. I can tell you think they are one in the same, driving/physical control, so why does California legislature say differently?

"To drive" is defined as meaning, "to impel the motion and quicken"; whereas "to operate" means "to direct or superintend." (Century Dictionary.)
Bosse v. Marye (1926), 80 Cal.App. 109, 118.

69. "Driver." "Driver" is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.
Stats. 1935, ch. 27, p. 98.

Now do you also see how operate means to superintend. THat is the guy running the buisness that the "driver" works for.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by greatwolf75

I do agree that people would be a whole lot safer if some people were not allowed on the road.

They have license.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Codee

.... to drive does not mean to "Steer" and have the hands on the wheel...

I am aware of the distinction, but I used "steer" because so many people on this forum have their own peculiar notions of what "drive" implies. I would assume that it was clear that I meant what the vast majority of people (outside of this forum) mean when they talk about "driving a car".

The precise meaning of "operating" a motor vehicle is more expansive than driving or steering. A person who is drunk and in the driver's seat of a parked car, with the motor running but the gear in Park or Neutral, can be arrested for "operating" car while under the influence; that the car was not in motion is immaterial.