The Right of Locomotion

The US Supreme Court has recognized our Right of Locomotion:

"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 14th Amendment and by
other provisions of the Constitution." - Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S.
270 (1900) -
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...&invol=270#274

Examine this carefully. This is YOUR Right. You NEED to Understand
EXACTLY WHAT is your Right.

Note: "and the right, ordinarly"

Which Right? "of locomotion", "to remove from one place to another",
"of personal liberty", "of free transit". AKA: Personal Travel.

How? "ordinarly".

Where? "from or through the territory of any state". AKA: Public
Property.

We have the Right of Locomotion Ordinarly used for Personal Travel on
Public Property.

Even expressed in this form, from experience debating this issue, there
will be those who still don't understand what their Right is.

Let me rephrase it. On any particular stretch of Public Property, you
have a Right to use WHATEVER Locomotion is Ordinarly used on that
stretch.

On Public Sidewalks, the Locomotion Ordinarly used is Walking, and we
have a Right to Walk on Public Sidewalks.

On Public Biketrails, the Locomotion Ordinarly used is Bikes, and we
have a Right to Bike on Public Biketrails.

What is the Locomotion Ordinarly used for Personal Travel on our Public
Highways?

It is, of course, the Automobile.

On Public Highways, the Locomotion Ordinarly used is the Auto, and we
have a Right to use Autos on Public Highways.

"proffsl" > wrote in message
oups.com...
snip whine

If wishes were fishes, you sure would have a nice
dinner, huh?

If wishes were fishes, I'd have nothing, as I only have facts.

If facts were stacked, you'd be flat.

Is it really so difficult to shake off the harness? Clearly, in a knee
jerk fashon, you fealt the need to try to humiliate me. But, for who's
benefit, for what purpose, and in who's eyes? I present you with
evidence of my claim, you offer no counter evidence of any sort, then
come off with some cutesy limerick! Are you under the impression you
proved anything to anybody, other than the ability to plagerize cutesy
limericks?

You have lived in this harness for so long, you are afraid to live
without it, you are afraid to consider living without it, and to avoid
doing that, you are afraid to even admit the harness exists! And, in
your case, plagiarizing cutesy limericks is a defense mechanism,
protecting you from unwanted thought and observations.

You probably wouldn't dare follow it, but this is a link to a site
where the 1937 Detroit Michigan Driver's Handbook is shown. At the
time of the publishing of this handbook, "driving" was still openly
admitted by Cities and States as a Right.
http://www.us-highways.com/trtdr00.htm

Let's try another approach at this. Surely you would have to admit our
Constitution recognizes our Personal Right to Liberty. And, surely you
would have to admit that this implies a Personal Right to Travel on
Public Highways, Roads, Paths, and other Public Right of Ways. If you
can't admit even this, then I can only think you humiliate yourself.

Assuming you admit we have the Personal Right to Travel on our Public
Highways, in what manner should we Travel on them other than the
Ordinary (the usual) manner of Travel on them? Should we be limited to
only extraordinary manners of Travel on them, which in turn may be, and
are in many places, prohibited because they obstruct the ordinary
manner of Travel?

And, how can you have a Right to something extraordinary which can be
prohibited because it obstructs the ordinary? You can't! If there
must be a choice between the Ordinary manner of Travel and a certain
extraordinary manner of Travel, the Right must always go with the
Ordinary manner of Travel.

If you have the Right to Travel on Public Highways, Roads, Paths and
other Public Right of Ways, then you have the Right to Travel on Public
Highways, and you have the Right to Travel on Public Roads, and you
have the Right to Travel on Public Paths, and you have the Right to
Travel on other Public Right of Ways.

If you have the Right to Travel on Public Highways, then, formost, you
have the Right to Travel on them in the manner Ordinarly used on them.
The Ordinary manner yesterday was the Ordinary manner yesterday. The
Ordinary manner today is the Ordinary manner today. The Ordinary
manner tomorrow will be the Ordinary manner tomorrow.

We have the Right to the Ordinary manner of Travel used on any
particular stretch of Public Highway, Road, Path or other Public Right
of Way at any particular time.

"proffsl" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Is it really so difficult to shake off the harness? Clearly, in a knee
> jerk fashon, you fealt the need to try to humiliate me. But, for who's
> benefit, for what purpose, and in who's eyes? I present you with
> evidence of my claim, you offer no counter evidence of any sort, then
> come off with some cutesy limerick! Are you under the impression you
> proved anything to anybody, other than the ability to plagerize cutesy
> limericks?
>
[snip...]

Isn't this now the third time you've posted this right-to-drive stuff, which
effectively makes it Usenet spam?

The right of locomotion means--literally--the right to move oneself. One can
freely do that with their own legs, as well as any wheeled/non-motor vehicle
of their choice (e.g., bicycle, skateboard, inline roller-skates)... subject
to any additional restrictions about wheeled/non-motored vehicles in their
respective area.

However, when extended to a multi-ton motor vehicle that can injure or kill
oneself and/or others if not properly controlled--driving is properly left
as a privilege rather than an unalienable right. As it is now, enough
so-called licensed drivers--where the license is supposed to indicate
proficiency in the knowledge of the laws of driving and competent
behind-the-wheel control of the motor vehicle--make enough driving errors
and intentional violations of various laws of driving that there are
multiple collisions reported on an hourly basis.

Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>
> The right of locomotion means--literally--the right to move oneself.

Give this person a cigar! You are correct! And, among all the various
manners of locomotion possible, the US Supreme Court has specifically
recognized as a Right only the certain types of locomotion "ordinarily"
used on any given stretch of Public Right of Way.

"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 14th Amendment and by
other provisions of the Constitution." - Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S.
270 (1900) -
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...&invol=270#274

And, if other extraordinary manners of locomotion obstruct with the
locomotion ordinarily used on a particular stretch of Public Right of
Way, that extraordinary manner of locomotion may rightfully be
prohibited on that particular stretch of Public Right of Way.


> One can freely do that with their own legs, as well as any wheeled/non-motor
> vehicle of their choice (e.g., bicycle, skateboard, inline roller-skates)...

You are, in fact, quite mistaken. Walking, bicycling, skateboarding
and inline roller-skating are rather extraordinary manners of
locomotion used on our Public Highways, which can be, and indeed often
are, rightfully prohibited because they obstruct with the locomotion
ordinarily used on Public Highways, each upon which we have a Right
ONLY to the locomotion ordinarily used on it.

Nowhere is walking, bicycling, skateboarding or inline roller-skating
specifically recognized as a Right on Public Highways! I find it quite
peculiar that you would assert that these rather extraordinary manners
of locomotion on Public Highways are a Right when there not
specifically recognized, but would deny the Right of Locomotion
Ordinarily used on Public Highways when it IS specifically recognized.

The US Supreme Court has specifically recognized ONLY the Locomotion
Ordinarily used on any particular stretch of Public Right of Way.
Today, that Ordinary Locomotion on Public Highways is, of course, the
motor vehicle. But, you deny the use of a motor vehicle on Public
Highways is a Right, because the use of a "motor vehicle" on Public
Highways isn't specifically recognized as a Right, and despite the fact
that the Locomotion Ordinarily used on Public Right of Ways IS
specifically recognized.


> subject to any additional restrictions about wheeled/non-motored
> vehicles in their respective area.

Something which is a Right is not subject to restriction nor
prohibition. Walking on Public Highways can be prohibited because it
obstructs the locomotion ordinarily used there, that being the motor
vehicle. Motor Vehicles on Public Sidewalks can be prohibited because
they obstruct the locomotion ordinarily used there, that being walking.
But, on both Public Highways and Public Sidewalks, the locomotion
ordinarily used there is a recognized Right and therefore CAN NOT be
prohibited.

We have a Right to use Public Highways, Roads, Sidewalks, Paths, and
other Public Right of Ways. And, on each, we have the Right to use the
Locomotion Ordinarily used on that particular Public Right of Way.

We have the Right to use Public Highways, and the locomotion ordinarily
used on Public Highways at the time, regardless if that Public Highway
runs parallel with other Public Right of Ways or not.

We have the Right to use Public Sidewalks, and the locomotion ordinarly
used on Public Sidewalks at the time, regardless if that Public
Sidewalk runs parallel with other Public Right of Ways or not.

We have the Right to use Public Right of Ways, and the locomotion
ordinarly used on those particular Public Right of Ways at the time,
regardless if that Public Right of Way runs parallel with other Public
Right of Ways or not.


> However, when extended to a multi-ton motor vehicle that can injure or
> kill oneself and/or others if not properly controlled--driving is properly left
> as a privilege rather than an unalienable right.

Another reason a particular manner of locomotion may be prohibited is
if it poses an unacceptable level of danger or risk to the Rights of
others. If, as it would appear, you would claim the motor vehicle
poses an unacceptable level of danger or risk to the Rights of others,
it must be outright prohibited for EVERYONE. One CAN NOT obtain a
license to Endanger the lives or property of others. But, clearly, as
the motor vehicle IS the locomotion ordinarily used on Public Highways,
the level of danger they pose must be acceptable. Otherwise, if it
weren't, it wouldn't be the locomotion ordinarly used.

Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> Proffsl wrote:
> >
> > Is it really so difficult to shake off the harness? Clearly, in a knee
> > jerk fashon, you fealt the need to try to humiliate me. But, for who's
> > benefit, for what purpose, and in who's eyes? I present you with
> > evidence of my claim, you offer no counter evidence of any sort, then
> > come off with some cutesy limerick! Are you under the impression you
> > proved anything to anybody, other than the ability to plagerize cutesy
> > limericks?
>
> Isn't this now the third time you've posted this right-to-drive stuff,

No. It's more like the tenth time I posted this Right-OF-LOCOMOTION
stuff, and it won't be the last.


> which effectively makes it Usenet spam?

What you call "spam", I call my soap box and my Right of Speech.
Another Right you might not be aware of.

What I consider SPAM is when people respond to issues, with no
intention of discussing the issue.

You've opened up dialog concerning the issue, weak as it might have
been. I consider this issue to be of pivotal importance in many ways.
Especially so now since there intentions to attach the National ID
Abomination to Driver Licenses. I demand our Government abide strictly
by the Constitution. I would think you should too.

Are you afraid to find out? Are you afraid it will put you up against
something bigger than you? Are you afraid you;ll feel foolish for
allowing yourself to be fooled all your life? Are you afraid of the
truth?

proffsl wrote:
>
> What I consider SPAM is when people respond to issues, with no
> intention of discussing the issue.

Except when the "issue" is a made-up one, where only one person
actually gives a ****.

> You've opened up dialog concerning the issue, weak as it might have
> been.

No, you're just trolling.

Nobody in r.a.d. seems to give one little rat's ass about your pet
project.

Maybe you'd have more luck in alt.kooks?

Now, don't get me wrong - I appreciate your motivations on the issue.
Obviously the right to drive is not your real motivation. Your real
motivation is to have a ****ing match in usenet. Otherwise you'd go
and do something real, instead of having your face glued to a monitor.

Oh, the right to drive? I couldn't care less. With every other issue
out there, up to and including the stuff I have to do when I get home
tonight, it ranks right down there with the reproductive habits of
archaebacteria.

E.P.

Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>
> One can freely do that with their own legs,

This is always the snide responce, thought through none.

We have the Right to Travel on Public Right of Ways, Including
Highways. The snide responce is "Walk". But, If one were to choose to
Walk on Public Highways, obstructing travelers in motor vehicles, those
who would say "Walk" will also be the first screaming to get them off
"their" highways because they obstruct motor vehicles.

On 20 Jul 2005 02:22:07 -0700, "proffsl" > wrote:

>Is it really so difficult to shake off the harness? Clearly, in a knee
>jerk fashon, you fealt the need to try to humiliate me. But, for who's
>benefit, for what purpose, and in who's eyes? I present you with
>evidence of my claim, you offer no counter evidence of any sort, then
>come off with some cutesy limerick! Are you under the impression you
>proved anything to anybody, other than the ability to plagerize cutesy
>limericks?
>
>You have lived in this harness for so long, you are afraid to live
>without it, you are afraid to consider living without it, and to avoid
>doing that, you are afraid to even admit the harness exists! And, in
>your case, plagiarizing cutesy limericks is a defense mechanism,
>protecting you from unwanted thought and observations.
>
>You probably wouldn't dare follow it, but this is a link to a site
>where the 1937 Detroit Michigan Driver's Handbook is shown. At the
>time of the publishing of this handbook, "driving" was still openly
>admitted by Cities and States as a Right.
>http://www.us-highways.com/trtdr00.htm
>
>Let's try another approach at this. Surely you would have to admit our
>Constitution recognizes our Personal Right to Liberty. And, surely you
>would have to admit that this implies a Personal Right to Travel on
>Public Highways, Roads, Paths, and other Public Right of Ways. If you
>can't admit even this, then I can only think you humiliate yourself.
>
>Assuming you admit we have the Personal Right to Travel on our Public
>Highways, in what manner should we Travel on them other than the
>Ordinary (the usual) manner of Travel on them? Should we be limited to
>only extraordinary manners of Travel on them, which in turn may be, and
>are in many places, prohibited because they obstruct the ordinary
>manner of Travel?
>
>And, how can you have a Right to something extraordinary which can be
>prohibited because it obstructs the ordinary? You can't! If there
>must be a choice between the Ordinary manner of Travel and a certain
>extraordinary manner of Travel, the Right must always go with the
>Ordinary manner of Travel.
>
>If you have the Right to Travel on Public Highways, Roads, Paths and
>other Public Right of Ways, then you have the Right to Travel on Public
>Highways, and you have the Right to Travel on Public Roads, and you
>have the Right to Travel on Public Paths, and you have the Right to
>Travel on other Public Right of Ways.
>
>If you have the Right to Travel on Public Highways, then, formost, you
>have the Right to Travel on them in the manner Ordinarly used on them.
>The Ordinary manner yesterday was the Ordinary manner yesterday. The
>Ordinary manner today is the Ordinary manner today. The Ordinary
>manner tomorrow will be the Ordinary manner tomorrow.
>
>We have the Right to the Ordinary manner of Travel used on any
>particular stretch of Public Highway, Road, Path or other Public Right
>of Way at any particular time.


Here's more evidence of the RIGHT..

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.