Real0ne
Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
|
Does this count?
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
In the state of Texas, registration of a vehicle is required by law and the 1.3 billion dollars raised statewide is used to maintain and construct state and county roads and state highways.
I do not dispute the right to travel.
I do dispute the right to travel in an unlicensed vehicle since the owner of the vehicle is not contributing to the maintaining of the roads.
In other words, this topic is as full of shit now as it has been every time he brings it up. Things were so much more pleasant when Realone was not around to bug us with his bullshit topics on things that only he believes in.
In truth, if this right to travel negated the need for car registration and a driver's license, I am quite sure (I bet you are quite sure LMAO) the supreme court would have handled the case and called such things as unconstitutional.
So we do not pay gas tax?
You feel that infringing on rights is the only way to pay for roads?
Gas tax which does not infringe on rights wont work right?
U.S. Supreme Court
Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958)
2.1 The RIGHT to travel is a part of the liberty of which the Citizen cannot be deprived without due process of the law under the 5th Amendment. See: Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.
3. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin stated in 1909:
3.1 The term "public highway," in its broad popular sense, includes toll roads--any road which the public have a RIGHT to use even conditionally, though in a strict legal sense it is restricted to roads which are wholly public. See: Weirich v. State, 140 Wis. 98.
4. The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois ruled:
4.1 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 might be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience.. See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 22.
5. "Regulated" here can only mean traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, sign, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission, i.e.; licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc..
6. PRIVILEGE OR RIGHT?
6.1 The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE, but a COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived. See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, supra; Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934; Boone v. Clark, 214 S.W. 607; American Jurisprudence 1st Ed., Highways § 163.
6.2 Citizen's RIGHT to travel upon public highways includes RIGHT to use usual conveyances of time, including horse-drawn carriage, or automobile, for ordinary purposes of life and business. See: Thompson v. Smith (Chief of Police), 154 S.E. 579, 580.
6.3 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 RIGHT which he has under the RIGHT to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Emphasis added). See: Thompson v. Smith, supra.
7. It could not be stated more Conclusively that a Free Man Man in the 50 united States of America has a RIGHT to travel, without approval or restriction, (license), and that this RIGHT is protected under the U.S. Constitution. After all, who do the streets, highways, roadways and waterways belong to anyway? The People-At-Large! The 50 States and the federal government are only stewards of the People's Property! Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:
7.1 . . . [T]he streets and highways belong to the public, for the use of the public in the ordinary and customary manner. See: Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wn. 657; 168 P. 516.
7.2 All those who travel upon, and transport their property upon, the public highways, using the ordinary conveyance of today, and doing so in the usual and ordinary course of life and business. See: Hadfield, supra; State v. City of Spokane, 109 Wn. 360; 186 P. 864.
7.3 The RIGHT of the Citizen to travel upon the highways 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 highways his place of business and uses it for private gain . . . . (Emphasis added). See: State v. City of Spokane, supra.
7.4 . . . [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 and other cases too numerous to mention.
8. The Washington State Supreme Court stated:
8.1 I am not particularly interested about the rights of haulers by contract, or otherwise, but I am deeply interested in the RIGHTS of the public to use the public highways freely for all lawful purposes. (Emphasis added). See: Robertson v. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash. 133 at 139. 9. The Supreme Court of the State of Indiana ruled in 1873:
9.1 It is not the amount of travel, the extent of the use of a highway by the public that distinguishes it from a private way or road. It is the RIGHT to so use or travel upon it, not its exercise. (Emphasis added). See: Ind 455, 461.
10. American Jurisprudence 1st, has this to say:
10.1 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. . See: 11 American Jurisprudence 1st., Constitutional Law, § 329, page 1123.
11. The Supreme Court of the State of Georgia ruled:
11.1 In this connection it is well to keep in mind that, while the public has an absolute RIGHT to the use of the streets for their primary purpose, which is for travel, the use of the streets from the purpose of parking automobiles is a privilege, and not a RIGHT ;and the privilege must be accepted with such reasonable burdens as the city may place as conditions to the exercise of the privilege. (Emphasis added). See: Gardner v. City of Brunswick, 28 S.E. 2d 135.
12. The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado discussed the issue in the following way in 1961.
12.1 The Constitution of the State of Colorado, Article II, § 3 provides that: All persons have certain natural, essential and unalienable RIGHTS, among which may be reckoned the RIGHT . . . of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; . . . .
12.1.1 A vehicle is property and a person cannot be deprived of property without due process of law. The term property, within the meaning of the due process clause, includes the RIGHT to make full use of the property which one has the unalienable RIGHT to acquire.
12.1.2 Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty. (Emphasis added). See: People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210.
13. The Constitution of the State of Idaho contains the words:
13.1 All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain unalienable RIGHTS, among which are . . . ; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property. . . . (Emphasis added).
14. The words of the Idaho Constitution are to all intents and purposes identical with those of the North Carolina Constitution. The Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I, § 1, states as follows:
14.1 The equality and rights of persons. We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness. (Emphasis added).
( The only persons which can be the meaning of the Article above are man,and not a corporation, since corporations are created with privileges granted by government not rights ).
14.2 To be that statutes which would deprive a citizen of the RIGHTS of person or property without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of common law, would not be the law of the land. (Emphasis added). See: Hoke v. Henderson, 15 N.C. 15, 25 AM. Dec. 677.
15. Since courts tend to be consistent in their rulings, it would be expected the Idaho Supreme Court would rule in the same manner as the North Carolina Supreme Court.
16. Other authorities have arrived at similar conclusions:
16.1 The Constitution for the United States of America, Amendment 9:
16.1.1 The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
17. The Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I, § 36:
17.1 Other rights of the people. The enumeration of rights in this Article shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people. (Emphasis added).
18. I demand all of my other rights, including the right to travel upon the public highways and byways in the 50 united States of America.
19. The Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I, § 2:
19.1 Free Manty of the people. All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.
20. As member of the Free Manty of the people, I not only am entitled to use the highways and byways in the 50 united States of America, I have an in/unalienable right to use the highways and byways.
20.1 Highways are public roads which every Citizen has a RIGHT to use. (Emphasis added). See: 3 Angel Highways 3.
20.2 A highway is a passage, road, or street, which every Citizen has a RIGHT to use. (Emphasis added). See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary.
21. I have emphasized the word RIGHT because it is a common point among the authorities listed. The Idaho Code even joins in this common point:
21.1 49-301 (13) Street or highway.--The entire width between property lines of every way or place of whatever nature when any part thereof is open to the use of the public, as a matter of RIGHT, for purposes of vehicular traffic. (emphasis added.) See: Idaho Code.
22. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that:
22.1 Undoubtedly the RIGHT of locomotion, the RIGHT to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the RIGHT, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a RIGHT secured by the Fourteenth Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution. (Emphasis added). See: Williams v. Fears, 343 U.S. 270, 274.
23. Thus, there can be little doubt that, when this Free Man Man travels upon the streets or highways in the 50 united States of America, he does so as a matter of RIGHT and not privilege. The authority for such travel is described variously as a RIGHT, a COMMON RIGHT, an ABSOLUTE RIGHT, an IN/UNALIENABLE RIGHT, and a RIGHT protected by the Constitution of the United States for the United States of America. Let us then examine the importance of these terms to this Free Man Man by defining their meaning.
23.1 RIGHT -- In law, (a) an enforceable claim or title to any subject matter whatever; (b) one's claim to something out of possession; (c) a power, prerogative, or privilege as when the word is applied to a corporation . (Emphasis added). See: Webster Unabridged Dictionary.
23.2 RIGHT -- As relates to the person, RIGHTS are absolute or relative; absolute RIGHTS, such as every individual born or living in this country (and not an alien enemy) is constantly clothed with, and relate to his own personal security of life, limbs, body, health, and reputation; or to his personal liberty; RIGHTS which attach upon every person immediately upon his birth in the kings dominion, and even upon a slave the instant he lands within the same. (Emphasis added). See: 1 Chitty Pr. 32.
23.3 RIGHT -- A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . . (Emphasis added). See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961.
23.4 Absolute RIGHT -- Without any condition or incumbrance as an absolute bond, simplex obligatio, in distinction from a conditional bond; an absolute estate, one that is free from all manner of conditions or incumbrance. A rule is said to be absolute when, on the hearing, it is confirmed. (Emphasis added). See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary.
23.5 Unalienable -- A word denoting the condition of those things, the property in which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. (Emphasis added). See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary.
24. It shows from these definitions that the States have an obligation to acknowledge the RIGHT of this Free Man Man to travel on the streets or highways in the 50 united States of America. Further, the States have the duty to refrain from interferring with this RIGHT and to protect this RIGHT and to enforce the claim of this Free Man Man to it.
25. Now if this Free Man Man has the absolute RIGHT to move about on the streets or highways, does that RIGHT include the RIGHT to travel in a vehicle upon the streets or highways? The Supreme Court of the State of Texas has made comments that are an appropriate response to this question.
25.1 Property in a thing consists not merely in its ownership and possession, but in the unrestricted RIGHT of use, enjoyment and disposal. Anything which destroys any of these elements of property, to that extent destroys the property itself. The substantial value of property lies in its use. If the RIGHT of use be denied, the value of the property is annihilated and ownership is rendered a barren RIGHT. Therefore, a law which forbids the use of a certain kind of property, strips it of an essential attribute and in actual result proscribes its ownership. (Emphasis added). See: Spann v. City of Dallas, 235 S.W. 513.
26. These words of the Supreme Court of Texas are of particular importance in Idaho because the Idaho Supreme Court quoted the Supreme Court of Texas and used these exact words in rendering its decision in the case of O'Conner v. City of Moscow, 69 Idaho 37. The Supreme Court of Texas went on to say further;
26.1 To secure their property was one of the great ends for which men entered into society. The RIGHT to acquire and own property, and to deal with it and use it as the owner chooses, so long as the use harms nobody, is a natural RIGHT. It does not owe its origin to constitutions. It existed before them. It is a part of the Citizen's natural liberty--an expression of his freedom, guaranteed as inviolate by every American Bill of RIGHTS. (Emphasis added). See: Spann supra.
you were saying jlf, ron?
< Message edited by Real0ne -- 10/24/2010 2:33:52 PM >
_____________________________
"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile
Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?
Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
|
RE: Looney Conspiracy Theorists at it again! - RIGHT TO... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread