mnottertail
Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
they don't always make laws for things you can do Einstein. your point is equivalent to saying "show me a law that says I have a right to breathe or eat."
although little doubt you'll find some personal and ridiculous esoteric distinction on which to hang your hat so you can continue to practice your malevolent pseudo-superiority, here you go vile critter parts:
quote:
Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."[1] However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).[2][3]...
As early as the Articles of Confederation the Congress recognized freedom of movement (Article 4), though the right was thought to be so fundamental during the drafting of the Constitution as not needing explicit enumeration.[4]...
A strong right to freedom of movement may yet have even farther-reaching implications. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that freedom of movement is closely related to freedom of association and to freedom of expression...
For much of American history, the right to travel included the right to travel by the vehicle of one's choice, and courts occasionally struck down regional regulations that required licenses or government permission to travel on public roadways. With the advent of the automobile, however, courts began upholding laws and regulations requiring licenses to operate vehicles on roadways. Constitutional scholar Roger Roots has referred to the forgotten right to travel without license as "the orphaned right."[19]
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. If that "liberty" is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the law-making functions of the Congress. . . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law
quote:
The Right To Travel
As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel
and there we have it. no right to travel in law. But in terms of the doing so, it appears that the right to travel, as well as the right to freely associate is a privilege extended to groups, since there are many in the US who have no such rights. And I will say again this it is now thought (by whom?) that the Congress never discussed it in any way shape or from in creating the Constitution, therefore it could have only been thought so by magic. And of course felons cannot own arms, and voter ID is unconstitutional. And bear in mind, they don't always make laws for things you can do. Remember you said that. And nowhere have I said that such laws are enumerated, nor necessary to enumerate, so you remain in the constant state that if understanding English was your job, you would be fired, if you were in school to understand English you would be flunked, and never allowed in the school again.
Your strawmen (never more than mediocre) are absolutely atrocious, Adolph
< Message edited by mnottertail -- 9/16/2016 5:22:57 AM >
_____________________________
Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30
|
RE: Purposeful Confusion? - 
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