Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest - View Single Post - Right to Travel
Thread: Right to Travel
View Single Post
Old April 28th, 2010, 12:57 AM   #14
Yota Bill
Senior Member
Join Date: 08-24-08
Location: Morrice, Mi
Posts: 3,229
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)

Originally Posted by Mr Toes View Post
I really would like to see the links, because there are laws and rules for operating a motor vehicle on a public highway. I think what you might run into is the public highway issue. The government controls and mandates on these roads so they can dictate their rules.
there are regulations placed on operating a motor vehicle, and you must follow those regulations or accept the consequences and pay the fines

now, first off, I just want to say that everything I am talking about applies to public roads, and I will not be refering to expressways or interstate highways at all...I'm not sure how those fit in, since they were actually built for military use

you have the right to free and unrestricted travel by normal means of the day (yes, what is normal in this country, our Constitition does not apply to or care about anything that happens in Zimbabwe). The basis for this is taxes. We pay taxes for the upkeep and construction of roads, yet we are then taxed again for the use of those roads. A license plate and drivers license is a form of taxation.
Another argument against driver licensing is that it is a contract, with the between the state and the driver, to remove your rights and pay the taxes. A person under 18 cannot enter into a legally binding contract, yet you get your license at 16.
I'm not going to get into that one, thats a whole other issue.

The fact is, and has been held up by many court cases, that you have the right to free and unrestricted travel. Requiring you to license yourself and your vehicel are forms of taxation and restriction that are not constitutional. Regulations can be implied though (stop signs, speed limits, etc).

Case # 1 - "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, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22

Case # 2 - "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by 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.

click the link above for more...I'm no going to bother to copy-paste the whole page...but I will add this:

"As hard as it is for those of us in Law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of

Of course, I have to bring up this quote from a pretty famous, and very important, case:

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." - Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

Of course, if you are on the road for monetary gain, driving commercially, etc., then none of this applies...any commercial vehicle can legally be taxed and required to be registered, and any commercial driver can be required to have a license.

"...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 license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion..." - State v Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078.

And I'm sure someone will say taht states can make thier own laws, seperate from the federal laws...entirely true, and I would not want it any other way...except that the states cannot remove rights that are guarenteed by the Constitution.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;.shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding". (This tells us that the U.S.
Constitution is to be upheld over any state, county, or city Laws that are in opposition to it.)

In the same Article it goes on to say just who it is within our governments that is bound by this Supreme Law:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;". - ART. 6 U.S. CONST.
Yota Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Page generated in 0.16916 seconds with 22 queries