On 20 Jul 2005 13:55:49 -0700, "John S." > wrote:

>
>
>proffsl wrote:
>> The US Supreme Court has recognized our Right of Locomotion:
>The remainder was snipped.
>
>Not this again...gawd! I thought this horse was beaten dead into the
>ground the last time you mentioned this nonsense.


Its amazing how some people like you are determined to stay under the
yoke of gvt no matter WHAT evidence is presented to you that YOU ARE
NOT.

==================

http://www.sagebrushnews.com/wise.htm

A Word To The Wise

Further enlightenment about the right to travel (drive)

By Jude Vollendorf, for the Sagebrush News


Last issue I talked about the right to drive, or travel, at some
length. But in conversations with friends (and foes) it has become
clear that people in general believe the fiction the state has
promulgated since the turn of the century—that travel on the roads in
a motor vehicle is a privilege. A privilege, of course, can be denied
at will. And the state has increasingly denied individuals the right
to travel for reasons further and further afield from regulating
traffic and public safety.
So I thought this time I would let the courts speak on the issue
and see if some understanding can be achieved by all sovereign
Citizens of the state of Oregon. There are many more quotes and cases
than what are listed here, but for space considerations these will
have to do.

"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 horse-drawn 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."

II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135

"The right to travel is an unconditional right which cannot be
conditioned by the legislature."

Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 341 (1972)

"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."

Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.;

Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution, Pg. 777

"A right which is free and open to all is not the subject of
license."-- Freebourgh v. Dawson 274 F 420.

"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." Chicago Motor
Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 22.

("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement: stop lights,
signs, etc.)

It could not be stated more conclusively that citizens of the states
have a right to travel, without approval or restrictions (license),
and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are
other court decisions that expound the same facts:

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen
cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th
Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

"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.

"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move 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 14th amendment
and by other provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 96
App DC 287, 293.

"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted
into a crime." Miller v. U.S., F.2d 486, 489.

"...Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the
plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its
police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the
use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private
business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction
between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the
usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main
instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common
Right; the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former, the
legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter; it is
plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the
streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such
is not a right but a mere license of privilege."

Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this
exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.

"...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...as a place for private gain. For
the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways
of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or
withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073.

“The right to travel is implicated when a statute actually deters such
travel, when impeding travel is its primary objective, or when it uses
any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that
right.

Mitchell v. Steffen, 504 N.W.2d 198, 200 (Minn. 1993) (citing Attorney
Gen. v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898, 903, 106 S. Ct. 2317, 2320 (1986)),
cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1081 (1994)..

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Ninth
Amendment to the Constitution of the united States of America.