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:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • 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."

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.