Do you have a God-given right to drive, or is driving a government-granted privilege that can be licensed?
The right to travel is a personal liberty. In 1876 it was called “the power of unrestrained locomotion.”
This right to travel “springs from the fundamental laws of our being.”
Acting upon your enlightened sense of independence, which a knowledge of your nature and destiny alone can inspire, you pursue happiness.
It is this pursuit of happiness that government was instituted among men to secure. Are you still protected in your right to pursue happiness? Or has a form of government become destructive to this end? Has our enlightened sense of independence been reduced to oppression?
PERSONAL LIBERTY — the most sacred of your liberties
The right to travel is so fundamental that it is not mentioned in the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court commented in United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757 -758 (1966):
. . . [T]he right finds no explicit mention in the Constitution. The reason, it has been suggested, is [394 U.S. 618, 631] that a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created. In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution.”
See also Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125 (1958); and Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 505 -506 (1964); and Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 14 (1965), where the freedom of Americans to travel outside the country was grounded upon the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The received law-of-the-land that existed when the original States wrote their constitutions continues as the common law until it is canceled by the legislature with “express words of nullity.” But because the government was created to secure the blessings of liberty, no congressman has ever had the authority to cancel personal liberty.1
According to American law textbooks from the early 1800s, we have three human rights (called “the rights of all mankind” and also called “the residuum of natural liberty”) that could never be surrendered to government. These three rights are the right to personal liberty, the right to self-defense, and the right to own private property. The common law considered these rights to be the residual of natural liberty which could never be “required by the laws of society to be sacrificed to public convenience … ” The preservation of these rights, inviolate, secured the preservation of civilized society (according to the introduction of the law textbook Tucker’s Blackstone printed in 1803 Virginia, updating an earlier law textbook Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law, Book 4)
Does your government still preserve these rights inviolate? Or did you waive your rights?
Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the “Robber Barons” and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized. If, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one by more or less rapid encroachment.” — Robertson v. Department of Public Works 180 Wash 133, 39 P2d 596 (1934)
That’s right. You were warned in 1934 that if “the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one by more or less rapid encroachment.” Government guards your freedom until you, through lack of interest, submit to the robber barons, then your most sacred of liberties will be taken from you.
The most sacred of liberties of which Justice Tolman spoke was your personal liberty. A definition of personal liberty is found in 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987:
“Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property … and is regarded as inalienable.”
And here are the definitions of natural liberty and personal liberty existed in the received law-of-the-land:
The lawyers then changed their definition in the1933 edition of Black’s Law Dictionary — long after the thirteenth amendment — to a definition of liberty that is purportedly guaranteed by the thirteenth amendment. The thirteenth amendment is the one that freed the slaves — and it does not even use the word liberty or the word guaranteed or the word rights. Freed slaves had their God-given rights, but they had to wait for government-granted civil rights that Congress granted with the Fourteenth Amendment. (They had the God-given rights of all mankind — which you no longer can have).
There are problems with this new law dictionary definition of Personal Liberty. It limits Personal Liberty to the federal citizenship given to freed slaves, and it remains completely silent on the Personal Liberty of state citizens. The Supreme Court in a 1875 case (Cruikshank, 92 US 542) concerning the discrimination of freed slaves (by Democrats) said: “The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other. … The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government.”
That’s right. If you voluntarily submit to government, then you are no better off than a freed slave living under martial law after the Civil War. For more information see my essay on martial law, and my book The Citizen Cannot Complain.
This concept is further confirmed by the definition of personal liberty:
11 Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135
“Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion — to go where and when one pleases — only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. 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.”3
That’s right. Police must protect you in your safe conduct as you drive without a license. Don’t claim to live in a free country if you have never seen liberty.
YES, you had a right to unrestrained locomotion to drive down the highway without a license. Until you waived your right by applying for a license.4
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., and Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed. both repeat Blackstone’s definition, which is the received-law-of-the-land;
Personal liberty — consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one’s person to whatever place one’s inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law.”
- Blackstone’s Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__Pg. 777
- State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073;
- Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171;
I recommend that you study:
- Arizona State Senator Stump’s letter to a Sheriff (link)
- The 114-page book The Right To Travel by Charles A. Weisman, (Weisman Publications, Burnsville, Minnesota)
- A 12 page brief on the subject, Aid and Abet Newsletter for lawmen, issue No. 11 entitled “U.S. Courts Confirm Driving a Motor Vehicle is a Right Not Government Privilege.” (Aid and Abet, P.O. Box 8787, Phoenix, Arizona 85066)
- A 221-page book Playing in Traffic by Jeff Ganaposki (1995, published by Church of the Living Word c/o P.O Box 671567, Marietta, GA postal code 30067). This book has a review of the laws and some courtroom suggestions for those who still have a license. I do not agree with many of his suggestions. I would not recommend invoking the Uniform Commercial Code as a way to fight your way out of commerce. I do not recommend trying to tell a law officer what the law says. The book misquoted some court decisions. And courts that hear traffic cases are never Admiralty Law (Admiralty courts have judicial powers, courts that hear traffic cases are not judicial courts).
- If you want to record police abuse I recommend you stream your car’s surveillance cameras to an internet server, so you will still have something to show in court. View the videos at http://www.veteransagainstpoliceabuse.org/ProtectYourself.aspx
— And sedm.org also has litigation tools.
RIGHT TO TRAVEL BY MOTOR VEHICLE
State and Federal Governments have their respective Constitutional authorities to regulate commerce. They were given that authority when “We The People” wrote their constitution to secure the blessings of liberty to their posterity. Governments also have the duty to secure the blessings of liberty. These two functions of government are compatible with one another. These two functions of government do not conflict. HOWEVER — be not deceived5.
Those persons who are engaged in government authorized activities can be regulated by government. Therefore vehicles that are used in commerce can be required to have license plates. License plates are on vehicles that need government permission to be on the road — to profit from the use of public roads. Once they are regulated in commerce (have a license plate), they never have the right of way. Pedestrians and bicyclists always have the right of way over licensed vehicles, because their right to travel is a protected liberty. Whereas commercial uses of the roads are never a protected liberty, they are a government granted privilege.
Government was created to protect rights. The Supreme Court keeps saying over, and over again that the right to travel on the public roads cannot be regulated. Ever since Nevada tried to tax people in stage coaches in Crandall v. Nevada 73 US 35.
According to a 25-page treatise “CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: The Orphaned Right: The Right to Travel by Automobile, 1890-1950” by: Roger I. Roots, J.D., Ph.D.; Oklahoma City University Law Review, 30 Okla. City U.L. Rev. 245:
- The right to travel meant travel by virtually any means available, or at least any ordinary or usual means. See City of Chicago v. Banker, 112 Ill. App. 94 (1904) (citing City of Chicago v. Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 909 (Ill. 1898)).
- “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts,” stated the Minnesota Supreme Court in 1910, “[yet] they have no exclusive right.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 69-70 (Minnessota 1910).
- Not a single license law excluded any nonmerchant from traveling on the roads with wagons, horses, or buggies of any kind. Indeed, courts suggested that no such requirement could be upheld even if it were to exist. See, e.g., Shiver v. Tift, 85 S.E. 1031, 1033 (Georgia. 1915) (citing City of Rome v.Suddeth, 42 S.E. 1032 (Georgia. 1902)) (“[A] person has a right to travel on a highway, and there is no rule of law which prevents him from driving a nervous, high-strung horse.”); City of Covington v. Dalheim, 102 S.W. 829 (Kentucky. 1907).
- When automobiles were first introduced around the turn of the twentieth century, drivers relied on common law traditions that protected the right of every person to travel upon public roadways without a license. Courts repeatedly wrote of an individual’s “right to travel” by automobile and struck down regulations aimed at limiting the liberties of automobile drivers on constitutional grounds. … Today, the public has accepted a degree of travel regulation which would have seemed almost tyrannical to nineteenth century Americans. … the change represents a substantial loss of liberty.
- the right to travel without undue restriction was the very first right recognized as a fundamental liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. See Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 35 (1867).
- This right to drive was “so well established and so universally recognized in this country,” wrote the court, “that it has become a part of the alphabet of fundamental rights of the citizen.” When the City of Chicago enacted an ordinance requiring car drivers to be examined and licensed by a board of examiners, the Illinois Court of Appeals struck down the ordinance as unconstitutional. The right of a car driver “to use the streets is undoubted,” wrote the court, “subject to [the limitation that he honor the rights of other users,] his right cannot be regulated by an ordinance.” “The fact that an automobile is a comparatively new vehicle is beside the question. The use of the streets must be extended to meet the modern means of locomotion.” The law of free travel was so well-settled that it was recognized in the “constitutional law” entry of American Jurisprudence as recently as 1931: Personal liberty largely consists of the right of locomotion – to go where and when one pleases – only so far restrained as the rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. City of Chicago v. Banker, 112 Ill. App. 94 (1904).
- Barely a decade into the twentieth century, American automobile drivers had largely given up the battle for the right to drive without a license. One reason may have been class envy,… Legal historian Lawrence Friedman pointed out that the automobile was initially a toy for the rich, and, early on, evoked envy and pride. [See Lawrence M. Friedman, American Law in the 20th Century, at 278.] The driver’s license was a status symbol every member of high society desired.
These books on the early court decisions are available at www.books.google.com as free PDF downloads:
- The Law of Motor Vehicles by Berkeley Davids, 1911, Edward Thompson Co., Northport, Long Island, NY, 774 pages
- The Law Applied to Motor Vehicles by Charles J. Babbitt, 1911, John Byrne Co, Washington DC, 1217 pages
- The Law of Automobiles by X. P. Huddy, Fifth Edition,1919, Matthew Bender Co., Albany NY, 1279 pages
- The Law of Automobiles by C. P. Berry, Third Edition, 1921, Callaghan Co., Chicago, 1625 pages
DEFINITION OF THE TERM MOTOR VEHICLE
Don’t be fooled by the term motor vehicle. This is a term that originated in statutory definitions 100 years ago but in wide usage has become known to mean something else. Do not assume these old legislatures intended to use today’s common misuse of their language.
Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20:
Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled”
The federal definition of Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 Section 31 definitions:
“(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…”
“(10) “Used for commercial purposes.” Means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit”
Your state will have a similar definition, but it will be hidden, vague or misleading. Government regulation is allowed for the commercial use of the roads. Regulation is also allowed for “police powers of the State” to control grave and immediate threats to interests the State may lawfully protect — like, for example, commerce. Look for the all-important element of “commercial purpose”. This might be hidden in state laws behind the definition of the word carriage, or transport, or traffic. If your legislature was relying upon prior court decisions, they might not have mentioned the element of commercial purpose, so you will not find it. Any other misconstruing of a statute would be a government restriction of liberty, and contrary to the purpose of government.
If the element of commercial driving is not explicit in the written law, the rules of statute construction prohibit you from assuming that the legislators violated their oaths of office to regulate the right to liberty. Governments are instituted among men to secure the blessings of liberty. Anyone violating their oath-of-office is denying the authority of their government, which also denies the legitimacy of his office1. After all, liberty is one of the three rights of all mankind that cannot be surrendered to governments.
The Term License has been redefined over the years. Once a tolerance of sin, then as a commercial contract for sinful purposes, which evolved into government regulated privilege to sin, and is now a form of Servitude while trespassing on government property. Can you spot the trend?
I put a history of redefinitions of the term LICENSE in a separate study: (Here…) where you will learn that commercial business is a peril to the soul. The word license started out as tolerance of sin and has evolved into servitude owed to government while trespassing on government property.
Definition by the Supreme Court: U.S. Supreme Court in GLOUCESTER FERRY CO. v. COM. OF PENNSYLVANIA, 114 U.S. 196 (1885) at 203:
Transportation implies the taking up of persons or property at some point and putting them down at another. A tax, therefore, upon such receiving and landing of passengers and freight is a tax upon their transportation; that is, upon the commerce between the two states involved in such transportation.”
The U.S. Department of Transportation did not exist until 1966. It absorbed six prior agencies involved in regulating commerce, including the Coast Guard, which was later spun-off to Homeland Security.
NO ONE has a right to profit from the public roads because driving-for-profit is only a government granted privilege. Anything else would be a government restriction of liberty, and contrary to the purpose of government.
U.S. Supreme Court in Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140, 144 (1924):
If the state determines that the use of streets for private purposes in the usual and ordinary manner shall be preferred over their use by common carriers for hire, there is nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent. The streets belong to the public, and are primarily for the use of the public in the ordinary way. Their use for the purposes of gain is special and extraordinary, and, generally at least, may be prohibited or conditioned as the legislature deems proper.”
COMMERCE RESTRICTS TRAVEL BY MOTOR VEHICLE
Government can lawfully regulate motor vehicles that use the roads for a profit. It is within their duty to regulate commerce.
Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 22, 337 Ill 200:
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. Where one undertakes, however, to make a greater use of the public highways for his own private gain, … the State may not only regulate the use of the vehicles on the highway but may prohibit it.”
Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516
… 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 a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion.”
Washington State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864:
The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus.”
Willis v. Buck, 263 P. 982 (1928):
On that point the opinion is not controlling here, as no person has a vested right to use the public highways for a commercial purpose, and a denial of the mere license to do so takes from him no property or property right.”
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82
Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that 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 of business for private gain.”
Wynehamer v. NY, 13 N.Y. 378, 481:
The right of traffic or the transmission of property, as an absolute inalienable right, is one which has never existed since governments were instituted, and never can exist under government.”
U.S. Supreme Court in Buck v Kuykendall 267 US 307 at page 314:
The right to travel interstate by auto vehicle upon the public highways may be a privilege or immunity of citizens of the United States. Compare Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35” . . .
“A citizen may have, under the Fourteenth Amendment, the right to travel and transport his property upon them by auto vehicle. But he has no right to make the highways his place of business by using them as a common carrier for hire. Such use is a privilege which may be granted or withheld by the state in its discretion, without violating either the due process clause or the equal protection clause. Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140, 144“
How do you like that? The U.S. Supreme Court says that a federal citizen may have the right to travel interstate by auto vehicle. Today’s judges tell you the opposite. 4 And notice that this Fourteenth Amendment right to interstate auto travel applies to federal citizens, the court decision does NOT mention State Citizens.
In the year 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case concerning the misnamed Driver Privacy Protection Act. They ruled that driver licenses are for commercial use, therefore you do cannot have a right to privacy if you have a driver’s license. A driver’s license is an article of regulated commerce. Reno v. Condon 528 US 141:
The DPPA regulates the disclosure and resale of personal information contained in the records of state DMVs. State DMV s require drivers and automobile owners to provide personal information, which may include a person’s name, address, telephone number, vehicle description, Social Security number, medical information, and photograph, as a condition of obtaining a driver’s license or registering an automobile. Congress found that many States, in turn, sell this personal information to individuals and businesses. See, e. g., 139 Congo Rec. 29466, 29468, 29469 (1993); 140 Congo Rec. 7929
Held: In enacting the DPPA, Congress did not run afoul of the federalism principles enunciated in New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, and Printz v. United States, 521 U. S. 898. The Federal Government correctly asserts that the DPPA is a proper exercise of Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. The motor vehicle information, which the States have historically sold, is used by insurers, manufacturers, direct marketers, and others engaged in interstate commerce to contact drivers with customized solicitations. The information is also used in the stream of interstate commerce by various public and private entities for matters related to interstate motoring. Because drivers’ personal, identifying information is, in this context, an article of commerce, its sale or release into the interstate stream of business is sufficient to support congressional regulation. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 558-559. This does not conclusively resolve the DPPA’s constitutionality because in New York and Printz the Court held that federal statutes were invalid, not because Congress lacked legislative authority over the subject matter, but because those statutes violated Tenth Amendment federalism principles. However, the DPPA does not violate those principles. This case is instead governed by South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U. S. 505, in which a statute prohibiting States from issuing unregistered bonds was upheld because it regulated state activities, rather than seeking to control or influence the manner in which States regulated private parties, id., at 514-515. Like that statute, the DPPA does not require the States in their sovereign capacity to regulate their own citizens; rather, it regulates the States as the owners of data bases. It does not require the South Carolina Legislature to enact any laws or regulations, as did the statute at issue in New York, and it does not require state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes regulating private individuals, as did the law considered in Printz. Thus, the DPPA is consistent with the principles set forth in those cases. The Court need not address South Carolina’s argument that the DPPA unconstitutionally regulates the States exclusively rather than by means of a generally applicable law. The DPPA is generally applicable because it regulates the universe of entities that participate as suppliers to the market for motor vehicle information-the States as initial suppliers of the information in interstate commerce and private resellers or redisclosers of that information in commerce. Pp. 148-151.
So if you don’t want your personal information sold, then don’t volunteer to get a driver license.
Paving the streets is not even a government function. The Constitution allows Congress to appropriate public funds to “establish ” Post Offices and post roads, but these are for government-to-government posts — Post Offices already existed and most of these streets already existed. The pre-existing streets were not owned by any government.
Public Streets are not government streets. Proofs:
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1856:
UNALIENABLE. The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.
2. Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1914), page 3350:
Unalienable: “Incapable of being transferred. Things which are not in commerce as, public roads, are in their nature unalienable. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.”
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1959), Vol.2, p.610:
Unalienable: The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold. Things which are not in commerce as, public roads, are in their nature unalienable. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.”
The first street paved in America was Stone Street in New York City. It was paved with cobblestones by local breweries to keep their delivery wagons from sinking in the mud. Imagine how different things would be if the breweries kept their jurisdiction over their paved roads. Would they stop you for driving sober so they could render assistance?
DEFINITION OF THE TERM DRIVER
The word driver means the same thing now that it did in 1856. Liberal wackos want to play god by changing definitions so they can dominate others. God gave you a free will. The rules of statute construction2 prevent them from imposing their will on you. You have every right to challenge their perverted re-definitions.2
Long before any automobile existed, the word driver included only those who were employed as drivers (making a profit from public roads). In the following 1856 legal definition, notice the mention of the commerce words employed, public stage coaches, passenger, and common carriers — all of which make a profit from public roads. Nor would a private traveler have a client to “give notice of any serious danger on the road”.
Long before the automobile, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1856:
DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.
2. Frequent accidents occur in consequence of the neglect or want of skill of drivers of public stage coaches, for which the employers are responsible.
3. The law requires that a driver should possess reasonable skill and be of good habits for the journey; if, therefore, he is not acquainted with the road he undertakes to drive; 3 Bingh. Rep. 314, 321; drives with reins so loose that he cannot govern his horses; 2 Esp. R. 533; does not give notice of any serious danger on the road; 1 Camp. R. 67; takes the wrong side of the road; 4 Esp. R. 273; incautiously comes in collision with another carriage; 1 Stark. R. 423; 1 Campb. R. 167; or does not exercise a sound and reasonable discretion in travelling on the road, to avoid dangers and difficulties, and any accident happens by which any passenger is injured, both the driver and his employers will be responsible. 2 Stark. R. 37; 3 Engl. C. L. Rep. 233; 2 Esp. R. 533; 11. Mass. 57; 6 T. R. 659; 1 East, R. 106; 4 B. & A. 590; 6 Eng. C. L. R. 528; 2 Mc Lean, R. 157. Vide Common carriers Negligence; Quasi Offence.
Even though this was the ONLY definition of driver, some courts now rule that we cannot resort to dictionary definitions because there is an unambiguous common meaning of the word. You have every right to object to a court changing the intent of the legislature. Word meanings should be preserved.2 While deliberating your state’s statute laws about driving, you must consider the rules of statute construction. A rule of statute construction (especially if there is no legislated “express words of nullity” to prove that a law changed the original intent): Verba debent intelligi cum effectu ut res magis valeat quam pereat Words ought to be understood with effect, that a thing may rather be preserved than destroyed.
STATUTE LAW CANNOT CANCEL A COMMON LAW RIGHT …
if the right is a God-given right. The first sentence of the Declaration of Independence says the laws of nature and the laws of nature’s God entitle the United States to exist. The right to exercise the power of unrestrained locomotion springs from the fundamental laws of our being. You cannot pursue happiness without this God-given right. According to the Constitution, it is the purpose of government to secure your right to pursue happiness. Nobody who swears an oath to uphold the purpose of government can suggest mutiny against it.
In an early prior licensing case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that common law rights are not destroyed by formal provisions in the statutes. Although the U.S. Supreme Court was ruling on licensed marriage and not licensed driving, they ruled in Meister v. Moore 96 U.S. 76 in 1888:
“No doubt a statute may take away a common law right; but there is always a presumption that the Legislature has no such intention, unless it be plainly expressed. … Such formal provisions may be construed as merely directory, instead of being treated as destructive of a common law right …. to be good notwithstanding the statutes, unless they contain express words of nullity.”
If you think a marriage license case cannot apply to rules of statute construction for other licenses, consider that marriage was also a common law right (according to the definition of Liberty established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, at page 399). And, of course, liberty is a common law right. Since governments are instituted among men to secure the blessings of liberty, it is doubtful that any congressman could legally violate his oath of office to express any statute words of nullity. There is no government authority to commit mutiny. The Supreme Law of the Land cannot be canceled by those who have sworn to uphold it. As Blackstone so eloquently stated: “… no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.. … Neither could any other law possibly exist; … for we are all equal, without any other superior but him who is the author of our being.”
RIGHT TO TRAVEL ON PUBLIC ROADS without a license, restricted only by common law rules of the road, with damages subject to tort laws.
In 1868 is Crandall v. Nevada 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 35, a stagecoach ticket could not be taxed by Nevada. At page 49 “We are all citizens of the United States, and as members of the same community must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own states”
Thompson v Smith, 155 Va. 367 (1930 Virginia Supreme Court case 155 Va. 367) syllabus:
The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will. …
The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions.
It has been said that when the State or a city has the power to prohibit the doing of an act altogether, it has the power to permit the doing of the act upon any condition, or subject to any regulation, however arbitrary or capricious it may be; and may lawfully delegate to executive or administrative officers an uncontrolled and arbitrary discretion as to granting and revoking permits or licenses to do such acts; ….
This doctrine has been pronounced most often in cases involving the granting, refusing, and revoking of licenses or permits to sell intoxicating liquors, or to do other things which because of their character are, or tend to be, injurious, as for instance keeping a gambling house or a bawdy-house, or operating a junk or pawn shop; and it has also been applied to cases involving permits or licenses to transport persons or property for hire along the streets. See Taylor v. Smith, supra, and cases there cited. But this doctrine has no application to permits issued for the purpose 379 *379 of regulating the exercise of the common right to operate a private automobile on the streets of a city, in the usual and ordinary way, to transport the driver’s person and property.
It is a fundamental principle of our system of government that the rights of men are to be determined by the law itself, and not by the let or leave of administrative officers or bureaus. This principle ought not to be surrendered for convenience or in effect nullified for the sake of expediency. It is the prerogative and function of the legislative branch of the government, whether State or municipal, to determine and declare what the law shall be, and the legislative branch of the government may not divest itself of this function or delegate it to executive or administrative officers.
- The Virginia Supreme Court then went on to determine Thompson’s rights:
- Whether a right to use the public highways for the ordinary and usual purposes of life be a property right or not, it is a very valuable right, not a mere privilege.
- Freedom from the restraint imposed by this void ordinance upon the exercise of Thompson’s common right to drive his automobile on the streets of the city of Lynchburg is the real object of the complainant’s bill.
California v. Horton, 14 Cal App 3d 932 (California Appellate Court 1971)
the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality, is a fundamental constitutional right which must be protected by the courts.”
Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 A. 778, 779 (Delaware Supreme. Court 1907).
A public highway … [was] open in all its length and breadth to the reasonable, common, and equal use of the people, on foot or in vehicles.” … “A traveler on foot [had] the same right to the use of any public highway [as the operator of] an automobile or any other vehicle.”
Indiana Supreme Court in Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465:
The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on the public ways. . . .they have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads… It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the road superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205:
Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages”
Mississippi Supreme Court in Teche Lines v. Danforth, 12 So.2d 784, 787, 1943:
The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways . . . includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. . . . The rights aforesaid, being fundamental, are constitutional rights.
Don’t be confused by the term includes. See footnote 6, below.
Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603:
A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.
Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779:
“The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway, . . . A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.
The United States Supreme Court in Aptheker v. Secretary Of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964):
Free movement by the citizen is of course as dangerous to a tyrant . . . it is therefore controlled in most countries in the interests of security. … That is why the ticketing of people and the use of identification papers are routine matters under totalitarian regimes, yet abhorrent in the United States.” (full quote, below)
The Declaration of Independence uses the phrase “sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people” as a legitimate reason to overthrow our government in 1776 — and bring forth on this continent a new nation conceived in liberty. Today, most swarms of officers are untrained and more than willing to beat you like Rodney King if you do not surrender your car and your liberty. The Declaration of Independence continues, “sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance”. Do swarms of officers harass our people for revenue enhancement so the government can eat out your substance? How about civil asset forfeiture of those who are never charged with a crime and cannot get a trial?
Iowa Supreme Court in House v Cramer:
The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel along the highways of the state is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling by some other vehicle. But they are to use this means of locomotion with due regards for the rights of others having occasion to travel on the highways.” — House v. Cramer 134 Iowa 374 at 376; 112 N.W. 3, 13 (1907)
A 1979 California case, re White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) determined that
… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right”
Notice from the following Supreme Court case that the right to travel within or without the country, without an abhorrent ID credential, is a liberty protected by the Constitution:
US Supreme Court: Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964):
“Free movement by the citizen is of course as dangerous to a tyrant as free expression of ideas or the right of assembly and it is therefore controlled in most countries in the interests of security. … That is why the ticketing of people and the use of identification papers are routine matters under totalitarian regimes, yet abhorrent in the United States…
Freedom of movement, at home and abroad, is important for job and business opportunities – for cultural, [378 U.S. 500, 520] political, and social activities – for all the commingling which gregarious man enjoys. Those with the right of free movement use it at times for mischievous purposes. But that is true of many liberties we enjoy. We nevertheless place our faith in them, and against restraint, knowing that the risk of abusing liberty so as to give rise to punishable conduct is part of the price we pay for this free society. ..
Freedom of movement is kin to the right of assembly and to the right of association. These rights may not be abridged, …”
… Absent war, I see no way to keep a citizen from traveling within or without the country, unless there is power to detain him. Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283 . And no authority to detain exists except under extreme conditions, e. g., unless he has been convicted of a crime or unless there is probable cause for issuing a warrant of arrest by standards of the Fourth Amendment. This freedom of movement is the very essence of our free society, setting us apart. Like the right of assembly and the right of association, it often makes all other rights meaningful – knowing, studying, arguing, exploring, conversing, observing and even thinking. Once the right to travel is curtailed, all other rights suffer, …”
Here is a link to the Aptheker case: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=378&page=500
Now read the last item in the cargo manifest of Revelation 18:13
Esau sold his birthright with an oath, how about you? (By the way, God hated Esau according to Romans 9:13 and Malachi 1:3)
What you bound on earth will be bound in heaven. Matthew 18:18. Including the unpayable national debt usury and the “work of national importance” that you swore you would provide. (Christ warned you never to swear Matthew 5:34, least ye be damned James 5:12) The smoke of your torment shall rise forever in the presence of the Lamb, and you shall have no rest day nor night. Debtor’s prisons are here. Watch the PBS video www.video.pbs.org/video/2365390673
Summary: liberty is the right to remove yourself “to whatever place one’s inclination may direct, without … restraint”. The U.S. Supreme Court says that freedom to travel within or without the country, without identification papers, is “the very essence of our free society”.
Everyone has a right to use the sidewalks. The right to travel on public roads was scrupulously upheld by the US Supreme Court in a famous civil rights case where the City of Birmingham required protesters to get a license; Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969):
“our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right”
Another Supreme Court sidewalk case, US Supreme Court in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105 (1943) said that:
- “A state may not… impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal constitution.” . . .
- “The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to suppress its enjoyment. …
- “Those who can tax the exercise of this practice can make its exercise so costly as to deprive it of the resources necessary for its maintenance.
- “Those who can tax the privilege … can close the doors to all those who do not have a full purse.”
DON’T CLAIM TO LIVE FREE IF YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN FREEDOM.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” According to Benjamin Franklin, November 11, 1755; Reply to the Governor. This is inscribed on a plaque in the stairwell of the Statute of Liberty.
*1. Governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed.
John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government is the basis for most of the Declaration of Independence. Paragraph 222:
The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their [liberty and] property …. it can never be supposed to be the will of the society that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure by entering into society,…. [this] holds true also concerning the [executive branch], who having a double trust put in him… acts also contrary to his trust when he employs the [offices of government] to corrupt … to cut up the government by the roots, and poison the very fountain of public security… ”
John Locke’s Second Treatise Of Government has as his last chapter, the topic of Dissolution of Government. The suggestion that government would not obey the laws would be “politics inconceivable to human capacity, and inconsistent with human society.”
*2. There is a maxim of law that things should be called by their correct terminology. And another maxim that words not be accepted to import a false definition. The legal industry would not exist today if the legislatures had obeyed these simple maxims and kept the correct name of their abomination.
A rule of statute construction (especially if there is no legislated “express words of nullity” to prove that a law changed the original intent): Verba debent intelligi cum effectu ut res magis valeat quam pereat Words ought to be understood with effect, that a thing may rather be preserved than destroyed.
Verba accipienda sunt secundum subjectam materiam. Words are to be understood with reference to the subject-matter. The subject matter is commerce which is what the state constitutions allow governments to regulate. States do not regulate liberty. States secure liberty.
In order rightly to comprehend a thing, inquire first into the names.
*3 Part of this is a direct quote from the syllabus in a case from the Virginia Supreme Court, Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579, 155 VA 367 in 1930. But Virginia added that this right to travel in the ordinary conveyances of the day is a right that a city may not prohibit at will:
The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day. This right is not a mere privilege which a city may permit or prohibit at will.
The decision in Thompson v. Smith repeated that the right is not a privilege. They could not decide whether or not this was a property right. They determined: “Whether a right to use the public highways for the ordinary and usual purposes of life be a property right or not, it is a very valuable right, not a mere privilege.”
*4 The Supreme Court’s decision in Buck mentions something that is usually omitted in other decisions. “Buck applied for a certificate. Thus he invoked the exercise of the power which he now assails. One who invokes the provisions of a law may not thereafter question its constitutionality.”
How do you like that? Once you are tricked into applying for a license, you forevermore waive your right to question its constitutionality.
*5 Beware of many deceptions from your State’s licensing authority. You will place yourself under legal disabilities by legalities that you don’t understand:
- We did not give to government the authority to force people to confess residency — a resident is an alien who is allowed to stay. This has always been so (Proof…). Once you confess to accepting a government privilege (that of being a resident), you have waived your rights.
- We did not give to government the authority to force people to take oaths such as perjury oath signatures. Oaths are only taken to superiors, thus granting jurisdiction. (More…).
- We did not give them the authority to keep changing the definition of the word license (More…).
- We did not give them the authority to take ownership of “your” vehicles that you register into regulated commerce. (More..).
- A license application should not require a fealty oath. It shouldn’t even require a Social Security Number according to Ruth Bader Ginsburg in Leahy v. District of Columbia, 833 F.2d 1046.
- In 1984 a federal court in Quaring v. Peterson, 728 F.2d 1121, ruled that state driver licenses must be issued without a photograph if there is a religious objection. Everyone would object if we all held the truth that we are created equal.
- A forced signature is not a signature. It is a crime to force an autograph.
- An ALL CAPITALIZED NAME is not even a proper noun. Once you confess to an ALL CAPITALIZED NAME you declare yourself to be incompetent. A ward of the court must be represented, even if you want to represent “your” non-proper noun. And, of course, you are presumed incompetent if you do not know your own name.
*6. The word “include” can be confusing. Law dictionaries defined it as
(Latin inclaudere, to shut in, keep within). To confine within, hold as in an inclosure, take in, attain, shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace, involve. Including may, according to context, express an enlargement and have the meaning of and or in addition to, or merely specify a particular thing already included within the general words theretofore used.
The maxim of law is not confusing: Quod non apparet non est. That which appears not is not.