|
Real0ne -> RE: Right to Travel! No License Required! Keep those lawsuits rollin rawhide! (10/7/2010 3:47:16 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aylee
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
The OP seems to have made a jump from right of travel to right of travel in a motor vehicle.
Invalid logic.
Right to travel could mean on horseback, on foot, bicycle, radio flyer little red wagon, donkey, wagon train, etc. NOWHERE does right to travel imply that automobiles are among those rights.
Noone says you cant travel the roads without a drivers license and registration, you just cant do it in a car.
I'm surprised noone caught that yet.
Well, I noticed but I was still a bit confused.
In the US, a citizen pretty much as free right of travel. Even getting onto an Army base is not difficult.
However, yes there are conservation laws about not taking your vehicle cross country. And yes, you do need to show that you are competent to drive a vehicle. (Horses do not ram each other with out a lot of training and motivation.)
Because of this, there are 911 services and liability that must be accounted for. Licensing and registration take care of that.
ok here ya go! Just one of many...
quote:
The RIGHT of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a 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 interferring with, not disturbing another's RIGHTS, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct. (Emphasis added). See: 11 American Jurisprudence 1st., Constitutional Law, § 329, page 1123.
Am Jur is American Law....
Of course that begs the question
WHY
is everyone buying licenses if they are
NOT:
quote:
[F]or 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. For the latter purposes no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a MERE PRIVILEGE or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion.... (Emphasis added). See: Hadfield, supra; State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins v. Jones, 155 P. 171; Packard v. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 257, 264 U.S. 140.
BECAUSE
quote:
A license fee is a tax. See: Parish of Morehouse v. Brigham, 6 S. 257.
So why are people paying taxes they do not have to pay?
AND
why does the gubmint enforce the payment of those taxes when the courts have ruled time and time again that no license or dl is needed except for commercial purposes?
Has anyone asked themselves that question?
Oh and just for giggles here is the definition of license right out of the attorneys fav law dict:
LICENSE license,n.1. A permission, usu. revocable, to commit some act that would otherwise be unlawful; esp., an agreement (not amounting to a lease or profit à prendre) that it is lawful for the licensee to enter the licensor's land to do some act that would otherwise be illegal, such as hunting game. See SERVITUDE(1). [Cases: Licenses 43. C.J.S. Easements § 9; Licenses § 88.] 2. The certificate or document evidencing such permission. - license,vb.
Ever wonder why they use BOTH the term (il)legal and (un)lawful in the same definition? or do we write that off as one of the mysteries of legaland? Gotta love the BAR infestation doncha?
Do you need (if you are a Dom anyway), to ask permission to exercise your right to free speech?
no....
Then why do you need to ask permission to exercise your right to travel?
|
|
|
|
