TED Conversations

Jeff Nation

self, My own business

This conversation is closed.

Traveling is a Right

The people of the United States of America have the right to move about the country by whatever means of conveyance they choose, without interference by the government, has been long and well established by the courts from the Supreme Court on down. So, how is it that the State Legislatures can enact, and the counties and municipalities enforce, laws requiring Certificates of Title, Registration of automobiles, Licensing of "Drivers," compulsory liability insurance, and a myriad of other regulations and restrictions upon the people?

The answer is, "By carefully and cleverly crafting the law so that the people are led to believe that such laws apply to everyone."

State courts and the Supreme Court of the United States have repeatedly held that "traveling" is a right. In the case City of San Antonio v. Fetzer, 241 SW 1034, the court held, "The streets of the cities of this country belong to the public. Primarily, every member of the public has a natural right to the free use of such streets in the normal pursuit of his private or personal business or pleasure. Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 377 Ill. 200, 169 NE 22 ALR 834, Ligare v. Chicago, 139 Ill. 46, 28 NE 834 and Boone v. Clark, 214 SW 607; 25 Am Jur 1st Highways, Sec. 163 the courts said, "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege but acommon and fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived."

Share:
  • May 15 2014: Agreed, Jeff, on the 'crimes' that should not be a crime. Unfortunately we've moved so far towards a Police State that Gobbels would be in envy. Dismantleing it should be a top priority, but the entrenched powers won't go silently into the night. We're going to have to give them a gently nudge...scratch that... a heavy whack in the back of the head.

    They haven't removed our rights to vote yet. Well, the Prison Industrial Complex is working hard on that by convicting malcontents of felonies that remove their right to vote, but otherwise its still intact. I advocate very high voter turnouts in the comming elections. Instead of fringe groups controlling the national conversation, lets get voter % so high that it truly reflects an American concensus. That will scare the corrupt in our society into fixing the problem, because the next step is the gillotine.
    • thumb
      May 15 2014: I'd like to apologize to you and everyone out there on this site that maybe I offended. It is not my intention to come across as a complainer. Your response really grabbed my attention because I felt like you understood since you asked what I thought a solution might be. I always believed there are two types of people out there in the world, those that sit around and gripe, and then those that take action and are "do'ers". i dont want to sound like I am just complaining, because my intention is only to shed light to what I believe is the truth.
  • thumb
    May 13 2014: Moving freely on planet earth is a right. Even beyond borders, as it is only one planet where we are born.
    However, we should be careful about the resons for our travel.
    In the interest of our own survival, all our actions should always be oriented at the common good of all life.
    Using natural resources for our pleasures is not beneficial for the rest of the natural world, nor does it do any good to us (see climate change, conflicts about water, pollution, ..)
  • May 14 2014: Yes, taxes are extortion. Government is the legalized Mafia and insurance is simply legalized gambling. What is your point? That is the way it has always been. Sure, some 'good' comes out of it, but that's simply a happy coincidence.

    Haven't you noticed that ALL leglislation is simply bribing the authorities to leave you alone? For example, here in Houston we have 'massage parlors' and 'game rooms' which are simply fronts for prostitution and gambling. Yet they are almost as common as nail salons. Why don't they get shut down? Well, simply the City charges permits for them to operate. These 2 permits, 'Sexually Oritented Business' and 'Game Room' are the most expensive permits in the City - thousands of dollars per year. THAT'S why they don't get shut down. Oh, plus they provide a desired service for the people.

    By the way, remember the change to 'no fault' insurance? The insurance companies got tired of suing each other over responsibility, so suddently accidents weren't anyone's 'fault' any more.

    So if you're unhappy with the situation, what solution do you propose? Individual Responsibility, as evidenced by your 'smart and responsible enough' statement, quite simply does not exist for the average person, and never for a Corporation. The Police State needs to track its citizens, hence the Drivers License requirements. In theory to get one you also demonstrate competence in operating a car, which is more oversight than teenagers get when they get pregnant. Gasoline taxes pay for the roads. License plates identify the car and get charged by the axel for possible extensive wear and tear on the roads. Hazardous chemicals, etc. require more permits identifing the owner and requiring safety measures. Texas has Inspection Stickers, which means that each car is tested for safety and emissions, theoretically preventing pollution. And through it all, thousands of people are employed.

    So what alternative do you offer?
    • thumb
      May 14 2014: 1 problem at a time...you forgot to mention all the tax dollars we pay towards over populated TX prisons. Why are they over populated? Because we are concerned with victimless crimes like prostitution. I don't like it, you don't like it, but If a woman wants to sell her body to a man for money consentually, who cares! We have all the wrong people incarecerated bc we'd rather send drug dealers/users & prostitutes to jail & let the pedophiles, child molesters, & other sex offenders register themselves & move in next to us..Malum Prohibitum (statutory crimes that are wrong by virtue of the statute) crimes are out of control. Just because we don't like it doesn't mean we prohibit everyone from doing it. Go down to the courthouse & request a copy the recent case decisions & what you'll find in 99% of them is just the complaint & the deal. We should be smart enough not rely on attorneys or "the powers that be" to tell us what the law is, then interperate it for us! As if the attorney that you paid your life savings to really has your best interest in mind when the DA & judge are people that he works with all week long & then goes golfing with on the weekends. His job is to make the deal & make sure that your rights are protected only to the extent that he doesn't have to defend them. We need to go back to Common Law courts that dealt with crimes that were Malum in se, meaning wrong in itself.. like murder, theft, fraud, larceny, ect. Americans gave up their power (Im referring to the power to think for themselves) that belongs to them to the government that wouldn't exist without them. You're right, the system has people duped into thinking that having everyone go through Drivers Ed &requiring them to be licensed ensures they are competant & safegaurds us. The mass of people in America are asleep, & I was too until I was told I was a criminal and spent the night in jail bc my license was expired.
    • thumb
      May 14 2014: They have been indoctrinating it into society slowly over time by brainwashing us when we are young...why else would you have government controlled public schools? The answer to this problem is we the people need to unite and be on the same page that we can and will think for ourselves and realize that we are the supreme law of the land. A single person does not have much of a chance when taking a stand against the monster (government) that we created, but a bus terminal of people does.
  • thumb
    May 12 2014: Travel is a right, but operation of a motor vehicle is not. That's where your confusion lies, Jeff.
    • thumb
      May 13 2014: With all do respect Lawren, you are the one who is confused...I'll explain. In regard to statutory law, the BIGGEST mistake a person can make is assuming they understand the meaning of a familiar word or phrase when they hear one. A word or phrase used in law will almost never have the same meaning that you or I are familiar with...in fact, it is a 100% guarantee that when a word or phrase is defined in statutory law, then it absolutely is not being used in the common and ordinary manner, if it were there would not be a reason or need to redefine it, would there?
      Again, w/ statutory law the definitions created within the statute is were you start. If its not defined in there you go to a legal dictionary w/ case law. If you look in any state transportation code almost every definition is there EXCEPT "transportation" I find that odd.
      Today people are led to believe that transportation means anyone in a car on the road.

      THIS IS NOT TRUE!

      "Transportation"- The removal of goods or persons from one place to another, by a CARRIER. (Blacks Law 6th)
      "Carrier"- . Individual/organization engaged in trans­porting passengers or goods for HIRE.
      "Carrier" means any person engaged in the transpor­tation of passengers or property by land, as a common, contract, or private carrier, or freight forwarder as those terms are used in the Interstate COMMERCE Act, as
      amended, & officers, agents & employees of such carriers

      So the fact is there is a difference between using the public roads for commerce (transportation), & using the roads for non commercial purposes as a matter of right , & liberty to travel on (private use). The courts have ruled that people have an INHERENT RIGHT to use the roads to move freely from state to state. Using the roads for commerce is a privilege. Transportation codes of every state refer to Title 49 of Gov Code where the Federal Gov is clearly regulating commerce.

      Lawren I would be careful w/ the terminology you use when/if you are stopped by a cop
      • thumb
        May 13 2014: Sorry, Jeff, none of that changes my original statement. You're free to travel the roads by car if you wish - as a passenger. Just like you're free to travel in a bus, train, or plane. OR you're free to travel by foot. But the operator of a motor vehicle on public roads must be licensed. That does not impinge upon your right to travel in any way.
        • thumb
          May 13 2014: Can you give me any proof or case law that says otherwise and supports what you say?
        • thumb
          May 13 2014: Somehow I get the feeling you work as a government official. However, when you subject everyone out on the public roads into one class needing a license, you may not feel like it impinges on a persons right to travel since there are other impractical means of doing so besides automobiles, but that is in fact restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel and right to not contract.
          "The state cannot diminish rights of the people." -Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S. Crt
          "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void." -Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60
          "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." -Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
          "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." -Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
          "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights."
          -Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
      • thumb
        May 13 2014: I'm no more a government official than you are a lawyer. None of these laws you've quoted say what you're trying to make them say. Licensing drivers does not restrict the free right to travel - it only restricts the ability to operate a motor vehicle.
        • May 31 2014: Lawren, Can I chime in here?
          Something new has been added to the cook pot...

          Jeff, 2014 and times are changing, the Obama changes.

          I just discovered a unique site.
          The "Big Brother Awards.de"

          It is self explanatory. They have been giving it out for years.
          I plan to make up one of my own and send it to the
          San Luis Obispo, California MTA bus company.
          They have just finished installing both Video and Audio surveillance.
          Inside each bus are camera(s) and audio recorder(s).
          They have nice black and white signs (bumper sticker sized) that
          expain in large print "VIDEO SURVEILLANCE" and underneath
          in small print "Audio Surveillance". Our Children will soon forget
          that this is a new innovation, and accept their loss of privacy without
          murmur.

          What a pity. I've not read of any Driver or passenger having a problem
          with anti-social behavior, or muggings, or the like. So as a preventative
          measure, there isn't much to substantiate such action. Maybe the DHS
          has invoked some regulation with the power to replace the constitution.
        • thumb
          May 31 2014: Thompson v. Smith, 157 SE 579, the court stated, "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by a carriage or 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 of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
  • thumb
    May 23 2014: Everyday thousands of courageous men and women face danger in many forms to make this a better country. Sometimes things go wrong, like Ruby Ridge, and changes are made.

    Ask yourself this, if Ruby Ridge had been in Uganda or Libya how would it have ended? Likely there would have been no survivors and the children would certainly not have received $1M each. Certainly the truth would have never surfaced and no changes would have been made. How would Hitler have handled Ruby ridge? Ask the people of Lidice.
    • thumb
      May 23 2014: What if???? WELL WHAT IF GRASSHOPPERS HAD MACHINE GUNS? BIRDS WOULDN"T EAT THEM..

      Im not waiting around for the US to turn into Libya or Uganda..Sure Jim, there are governments much worse than what we have, but any system that allows one person to choose a leader for someone else is corrupt and immoral.

      "I nowhere see the federal power, for in America all men are self-governing" -Alexis De Tocqueville
  • thumb
    May 23 2014: Wow! You think the US is a police state. You need to travel more. I can get in my motor home, and have done many times, and drive to Savannah, Las Vegas, Seattle, Page AZ or Boston and I will never be stopped at a check point nor searched, nor forced to show travel permits or letters of transit.

    Martin, can you read any book you like? Can you watch any TV show or documentary no matter how right or left it is? Can you openly call the president a name even a racial slur without prison time? Can you post to TED without censorship?

    If this is a police state, you need to reread your history and travel more.
    • thumb
      May 23 2014: Actually Jim you should look at men like Randy Weaver and then come back and comment...
  • thumb
    May 14 2014: You are confusing two separate issues. Licensing, titles, etc are a from of tax. You and all of us are free to move about as we chose. We don't have to have a car, use a bus, buy insurance, etc. But, if you have a car, the state has a right to tax it in numerous ways, Those taxes provide streets, roads, bridges, cops, ...

    Travel is a right. How you travel is a choice.
    • thumb
      May 14 2014: Yes, how we travel is our choice, but Let me clarify... the people that are using the roads as a place of business. people that use the roads for commerce. Taxi cab DRIVERS, truck DRIVERS, limo DRIVERS, and other CARRIERS out on the road that are for hire...Private use of our roads can't be regulated as it is a right. Again refer to Title 49 of US Gov Code which is what every states Transportation code refers to...
  • May 12 2014: It was my understanding that the "rights" you describe are actually the right to access public roads and this allows the state to regulate the "access" to these public domains. Like the FAA requiring maintenance schedules for airlines for the public safety. If you are in an accident the state has to know who you are to notify next of kin as first responders need to communicate this to save lives. Registration and licensing have for vehicles I believe is more for tax purposes as vehicles change owners multiple times and it's the state's responsibility to establish ownership. Just a few of my thoughts.
    • thumb
      May 13 2014: As I had stated above s part of my response to what Lawren said. Every states transportation code is based off Title 49 US Government Code in which the Federal government is clearly regulating commerce. The reason Government regulates the act commerce is because it can directly affect the public health and welfare. I'll explain...

      Lets say you own your own truck and trailer (standard 18 wheeler).You use it to move goods and property for people for money, meaning you use the public roads as a place of business. Now since you are independent all the money to maintain that equipment comes out of your pocket so anytime your expenses outweigh your profits you are losing money. Now in order to generate a profit of some kind you may decide its easier to forgo some of the maintenance or prolong the time between them in order to lessen the expense of maintaining the equipment. Lets say you acquired a contract and despite having neglected certain maintenance procedures that were necessary for your equipment to operate in a manner that is safe you decided to operate that truck and trailer anyways. In the event you start off down the highway with faulty air-brakes, mechanical issues, or even stress cracks in the trailer from having carried excessive weight before. After getting up to 70 mph the chances of you stopping that 85,000 lbs missile in traffic are slim, or you could hit a dip in the road causing the trailer to stress and break spilling the cargo all over the road...You now have directly affected the public health and welfare and this is how Government can step in, in order to protect and safegaurd the public from this. Make sense?
  • May 12 2014: There is also that minor issue with the Constitution, where rights not specifically granted to the Federal Government are the domain of the States. The States have decided that you must pay them some green, in this case to drive a car. All they really care about is the money.

    When you add in a vehicle of any sort, there are liability issues that also need to be addressed. Since individuals are not usually capable of covering the repairs and lawsuits resulting from damages caused, you are forced to carry insurance.
    • thumb
      May 13 2014: Whats your point? The states try to enforce a law that requires you to carry insurance. I'd like to believe that I'm not the only one that can think for myself and what I mean is..whether I am using our roads (thats right, those roads belong to you and I my friend and we have appointed the state as the "care taker" of them for us) for private purposes or if I choose to engage in the regulatable act of transportation I'm smart and responisble enough to carry insurance. The fact that the state tries to enforce it as law doesn't ensure a person that in the event they are involved in a wreck that the other person will be insured...but it is a means by which the state profits billions every year from the general public...that is flat out EXTORTION.
      • May 31 2014: Jeff, I agree. I don't like that I agree.

        The state should re-write the legislation to compel the State to issue a singular insurance
        protective policy designed to pay (no deductible) "all attendant costs" attributed to vehicle
        property damage and personal injuries including resultant deaths, with a Fixed Benefit
        schedule to fix loss, after assessment of personal injury. Taxed-payers to be responsible
        for funding. That would stick it to the lawyers who make the big rip-off bucks.