Right to Travel Part 100

[ISAIAH]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

As far as I know, every state of the Union (and definitely including DC) requires some sort of inspection for the issue or renewal of license plates;

Sorry to tell you but here In Washington if it rolls you can get plates. Heck even if it doesn’t ( I had to get new plates/tabs for one of my cars that was sitting dead or the landlord would have it towed for being out of date)

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

As far as I know, every state of the Union (and definitely including DC) requires some sort of inspection for the issue or renewal of license plates; ditto Canada. So the police of one state will be satisfied if they see the plate that shows the car has passed inspection in another state.

As for that bundle of court decisions regarding "right to travel" or even "right to use the streets", someone ought to read the cases before quoting them. None of them involved a so-called right to operate a car on the public roads without a license. At least one involved an application for a passport and some of the others involved the question of a city granting a monopoly to one bus or trucking company to the exclusion of any competing companies.

Let me try again:

"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 the city may prohibit or permit at will, BUT IS A COMMON RIGHT which he has under the Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. THOMPSON v SMITH, 155 Va 367, 154 SE 579, 71 ALR 604.

[...]"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of 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." [emphasis added] American Jurisprudence 1st. Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p 1135.

[...]The state cannot change the meaning of “motor vehicle” and “driver” to fit their own needs:

Is the proposition to be maintained, that the constitution meant to prohibit names and not things? That a very important act, big with great and ruinous mischief which is expressly forbidden by words most appropriate for its description; may be performed by the substitution of a name? That the constitution, in one of its most important provisions, may be openly evaded by giving a new name to an old thing? We cannot think so.” […The State] cannot change the name of a thing to avoid the mandates of the Constitution. CRAIG v MISSOURI, U S 29, 410

Emphasis added.
http://www.laubly.com/law.htm

Are there any questions?

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by idknow

Ok, I think this is an easy scenario to respond to.

The question is



Never. There is NO Act of Legislature to which we must give obesience to. NONE.

All the Law that WE *must* obey *IS* that which our father in heaven proclaimed and wrote in his covenant to us;

That is, the ten commandments in the former covenant, and the two commandments of the newer covenant.

and which can be stated in the language of the day as



All acts of a sovereign which violate those two points are torts only, and not acts in violation of any act of legislature.

I like your style.

However, the policeman or policewoman (on the street), the judge (in the robe), and the wannabe king, that is sometimes called Mr. President (in the white house), don't seem to understand the above.

[squirrel]

Subd. 48. Street or highway. The entire width
between property lines of every way or place of whatever nature
when any part thereof is open to the use of the public, as a
matter of right, for purpose of vehicular traffic.



This does'nt come from my mouth.

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/171/01.html


What part of RIGHT do you not understand !!!

Bring on the spew you spewspitting traitors.

As wichita falls so does wichita falls.

[Judge Roy Bean]

"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 the city may prohibit or permit at will, BUT IS A COMMON RIGHT which he has under the Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. THOMPSON v SMITH, 155 Va 367, 154 SE 579, 71 ALR 604."

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.

[Shoonra]

I bothered to look up this case: Thompson v. Smith (1930) 155 Va. 367, 154 SE 579, 71 ALR 604.

It is one of the very few cases in that bundle that actually dealt with a drivers license, but it didn't dispute the validity of the licensing laws.

The motorist, Thompson, had qualified for and gotten a Virginia state Drivers License (referred in the decision as a state altho technically a commonwealth). Virginia state law provided that the license could be revoked only for certain infractions: a felony conviction, conviction of violating the Prohibition laws (which probably would also be a felony, so it's much the same) -- and three convictions for traffic infractions in any one year.

Smith was the police chief of Lynchburg. The town of Lynchburg had adopted its own local ordinance to the effect that nobody could drive inside Lynchburg without a local driving permit issued - and revoked -- on the discretion of the Lynchburg police chief.

Smith purported to revoke Thompson's privilege to drive inside Lynchburg on the basis of only two traffic infractions. He revoked Thompson's local driving permit without any particular proceeding or notification

Thompson did not question the validity of the state laws requiring a state drivers license and so forth, he only challenged the Lynchburg ordinance that attempted to carve out a special localized driving permit unrelated to and unregulated by state laws.

The state Supreme Court held the Lynchburg ordinance void because, among other things, it gave the police chief, by himself, an invalid delegation of legislative power to an administrative officer, the more conspicuous because there were no precautions in place to prevent discriminatory treatment but left every decision to the whim of the police chief. The court did hold that the state legislature, having once enacted a drivers license law that essentially made a license perpetual without any expiration date, could later amend the law to impose an expiration period to drivers license in order to require drivers to submit to occasional re-examination - and this amendment could be applied to licenses already issued.

A fuller quotation from this decision would reveal that the court said:
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways ...... the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it."

The Virginia Supreme Court went on to quote from a US Supreme Court decision that "The legislature must declare the policy of the law and fix the legal principles which are to control in given cases; but an administrative body may be invested with the power to ascertain the facts and conditions to which the policy and principles apply."

[idknow]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

As far as I know, every state of the Union (and definitely including DC) requires some sort of inspection for the issue or renewal of license plates; ditto Canada. So the police of one state will be satisfied if they see the plate that shows the car has passed inspection in another state.

As for that bundle of court decisions regarding "right to travel" or even "right to use the streets", someone ought to read the cases before quoting them. None of them involved a so-called right to operate a car on the public roads without a license. At least one involved an application for a passport and some of the others involved the question of a city granting a monopoly to one bus or trucking company to the exclusion of any competing companies.

Shoonra, tho I didnt read it in the post above, would you agree that acts of legislatures only apply to those whom are required to obey: that is, those who are made by law, legislated into existence?

and for those who are new or just visiting, i'll rephrase.

acts of legislatures are voted on, CEO's (governors and presidents) sign or reject them;

then those acts are printed (usually);
then we the people hear about new laws and (sometimes) get to study them to see if they apply to us; if we are required to obey them in our private citizenship which is our birth-condition - free and sovereign.

No act of legislature can require me to do anything because no legislature created, formed or made me.

When I am not IN-commerce, I AM the sovereign, one of many.

even when I am IN-commerce, i can still reserve ALL of my birth-rights and by invoking the statement of Congress which reserves to _suitors_ (plaintiffs) all remedy in common-law where the common-law is able to provide such remedy.

David Merrill:

1. does the savings clause trump Erie? why?

[idknow]

Originally Posted by BOBT12

I like your style.

However, the policeman or policewoman (on the street), the judge (in the robe), and the wannabe king, that is sometimes called Mr. President (in the white house), don't seem to understand the above.

thank you, but we arent exactly learning or discussing standard themes here.

Truth is worthy to be sought and collected.

but dont hold it against anyone wh ois appointed or elected to be a civil servant; God is greater to accomplish HIS plans.

Shoonra, i"m starting to see your value here. You are correct, 90% of the time when i research case law on the traffic issue, it does relate to something totally different than driving with or without a license, so you are correct. Ok, we agree on that regard. Now, where people are going astray, myself included, is allowing the states ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE BECOMING CRIMINAL. Thats the gist of the whole thing, ok, regulate the streets all day long,but, if theres no victim, it must be civil. the fraud and kidnapping under color of law is what people are upset about. 90 percent of people in jail havent done anything criminally. the legislature can vote tomorrow in georgia and say everybody gotta paint their house pink or they committed a crime. its that easy for the state to act in fraud and malice against the people.

[squirrel]

treasonous traitor pukes need these corporate laws in place, how else they gonna steal that which does not belong to them.

The fraud and kidnapping under color of law is how they make a living...

Why are we still entertaining these treasonous traitors with feedback and going round and round with em ??

We have proved our point over and over again.

We have been lied too, and our country is going down the tubes.

We have treasonous traitors within our midst involved in a conspriracy to overthrow the Republic, they have installed a DICTATORSHIP under the guise of DOMOCRACY.

This is BULL**** PEOPLE, we need to start finding ways to get rid of these scumbags and take our country back !!
NOW !!