|
Real0ne -> RE: Common-law Right to Travel (1/18/2010 12:29:29 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
No its just started and in a big way in the courts!
"...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472
of course you know that the constitution stips common law in the 5th and 7th
Just started? You quote a case from 1793 and that is "just starting?" Cars didn't even exist at that point.
Do you believe that you cannot be sovereign if you want to be?
quote:
Driving, Passengers, Vehicle, is commercial and a privilege
Travel, Guests, Automobile is NOT and is a Right
The mode with which you "travel" is not a "right." Owning and automobile is not a "right."
Its not? Do you have anything to support that claim?
Anytime you drive a car, walk across the street, ride in a train, bus, airplane, skateboard, whatever, you could be considered to be "traveling," but if you are at the wheel of that car, you are "driving" and that is not a "right"
quote:
you see while you have the right to travel inebriated you do not have the right to injure another in person or equity which you see covers the damage side of everything you just mentioned.
It is against the law to be behind the wheel of a moving vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. It doesn't matter one bit if you call it "traveling" (yes, officer, I'm "traveling" home from the bar), you are breaking the law.
If you want to use case law to try to back up your points, try shepardizing them to make sure they are still relevant.
CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221. 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 law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579. It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution. CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125. CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly: "The state cannot diminish rights of the people." And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."
Other cases are even more straight forward: "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 "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491. "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
Maybe you have just been programmed to believe that is the case but its not the case when the battles go to court.
|
|
|
|
