Right to Travel Part 100

[Shoonra]

Here's a suggestion: Instead of tea leaf reading and wild extrapolations from cases involving passports and trucking monopolies, how about someone coming up with the citation to a court decision that positively, clearly, and unambiguously says that licenses are not obligatory for non-commercial motorists?

i agree with shoonra. the case that comes close is murdock vs penn. the problem, and i think shoonra agrees with me on this, is that the traffic laws are civil, NOT CRIMINAL. thats the problem. ive got no problem punishing people for INJURIES caused by negligence, but not for PRIOR RESTRAINT LAWS and non victim crimes. the best way to attack the drivers license is the fact that its actually a passport. think about it. they check your papers to see if you can pass thru their right of ways. thats another issue. states dont own the roads so how they gonna dictate to you what to use to pass thru? they have right of ways. the people own the land the roads are on.

[charlesa6]

Originally Posted by kgod999

i agree with shoonra. the case that comes close is murdock vs penn. the problem, and i think shoonra agrees with me on this, is that the traffic laws are civil, NOT CRIMINAL. thats the problem. ive got no problem punishing people for INJURIES caused by negligence, but not for PRIOR RESTRAINT LAWS and non victim crimes. the best way to attack the drivers license is the fact that its actually a passport. think about it. they check your papers to see if you can pass thru their right of ways. thats another issue. states dont own the roads so how they gonna dictate to you what to use to pass thru? they have right of ways. the people own the land the roads are on.

The driver license is a contract that you abide by it, you have to obey the rules and regulations govern your driver license at all time, and that is part of benefit. Until you rescind the driver license, Social Security etc., before you out of contract or benefit you signed on.

[charlesa6]

Nice avatar, by the way, Kgod999.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Here's a suggestion: Instead of tea leaf reading and wild extrapolations from cases involving passports and trucking monopolies, how about someone coming up with the citation to a court decision that positively, clearly, and unambiguously says that licenses are not obligatory for non-commercial motorists?

You are in error. It is the government's duty to demonstrate that the constitution has given it a enumerated power over the people. However, it is firmly established that the Right to Travel is a RIGHT. AS A RIGHT, THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO REQUIRE THE PEOPLE GET PERMISSION TO TRAVEL THROUGH A LICENSE, OR ANYTHING WHICH WOULD RESULT IN THE SAME, BY ANY OTHER NAME.

“It has been long settled, that a promise made in consideration of an act which is forbidden by law is void. It will not be questioned, that an act forbidden by the constitution of the United States, which is the supreme law, is against law.

The state cannot change the meaning of “motor vehicle” and “driver” ["license"]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.

THE LAW
http://www.laubly.com/law.htm

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, Sect.329, p 1135. Emphasis added.

Originally Posted by kgod999

the best way to attack the drivers license is the fact that its actually a passport. think about it. they check your papers to see if you can pass thru their right of ways. thats another issue. states dont own the roads so how they gonna dictate to you what to use to pass thru? they have right of ways. the people own the land the roads are on.

I see no problem with this, as long as you do this willingly, and without coercions.

[freeindeed]

Check out the attached document regarding travel in Washington state. Notice no law requires anyone to have a driver license for non-commercial use. There are similar laws regarding other states in the union.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by freeindeed

Check out the attached document regarding travel in Washington state. Notice no law requires anyone to have a driver license for non-commercial use. There are similar laws regarding other states in the union.

Thanks for the great info.

[Akira]

Originally Posted by charlesa6

The driver license is a contract

A license is not a contract between the state and the licensee, but is a mere personal permit. Black’s 6th.


Also...

When quoting Mudook v. Penn. 319 US 105 (1943):

“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution......

No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.”

Don't for get to include its 'sister cite':

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Al. 373 US 262 (1962):

“If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the license and a fee and engage the right with impunity.”

For HIS Glory,
Akira

[Shoonra]

Both those cases involved impositions on the First Amendment rights.

Murdock v. Pennsylvania involved the imposition of a peddlers license fee for the distribution of religious tracts.

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham involved the requirement of a parade permit, which was being withheld, for a civil rights march.

Neither case involved motorists.

The Supreme Court has upheld various drivers license laws repeatedly. It has stated that operating a motor vehicle on the public streets - for any reason - is an inherently dangerous activity and the states have a right and obligation to exercise their police power to regulate and restrict such motoring for the public safety.

There were some very very early cases - that is, before 1910 - regarding motorists, in which there is an indication that the states (or at least some of them) had not yet instituted the requirement of a drivers license, or not yet contemplated a drivers license that could expire or be revoked. But at that early time automobiles were still a rarity, gas stations also rare, and the experimental nature of the motor car was such that whoever was behind the wheel was probably also required to constantly tune or repair the vehicle, meaning that the vehicles themselves limited their operation to people with a certain amount of intelligence, skill, and the like. By World War One the requirement of a drivers license was ubiquitous.

[Akira]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Both those cases involved impositions on the First Amendment rights.

Exactly !

The right to sojourn / travel and spread the gospel / good news is protected by the first amendment.

Somebody recently provided a cite that said exactly that. (can't find it.. ATM)

Hmm.. I thought this thread called "Right to Travel Part 100"?


For HIS Glory,
Akira