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."


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • 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.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.