The Right to Drive Safely

Our States are Lying to us. Driving is not a Privilege. Driving is a
Right. According to the Supreme Court, We have the Right of Locomotion
ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways:

"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

Driving an Automobile is, by far, the Locomotion ordinarily used for
Personal Travel on our Public Highways today. State Drivers Licensing
Laws abridge our Right of Locomotion ordinarly used for Personal Travel
on our Public Highways.

Imagine the owner of some Private Property with some Roads on it hired
servants to improve and maintain your Roads. Now imagine the owner is
forced by the servants to obtain their permission to Drive on his own
Roads. Finally, imagine the owner is then subject to soliciting the
services of a Commercial Taxi, Truck or Bus authorized by the servants
to Transport the owner and his property on the owner's Roads.

The folly of this scenario is two fold. First fold is where the
servants would presume to give the owner permission to use his own
Roads. This in itself is atrocity. Second fold is where these
servants of the owner give outsiders permission to transport the owner
on his own roads. This is an Abomination!

This Abomination is our State's Driver Licensing laws. Our Public
Highways belong to everyone, to be shared equally by everyone. Our
States are our servants, authorized to improve and maintain our Public
Highways so as to Secure and Enhance our Right of Locomotion ordinarily
used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways.

Our Public Highways are intended to secure and enhance our Right of
Liberty, of Travel and of Locomotion. But, given the Abomination
imposed by State Driver Licensing Laws, the more our Public Highways
become unusable by anything but the Automobile, those same Public
Highways become Bars of Blacktop, denying us the very same Liberty they
were intended to secure.

Even if you have a Driver License, you are still being denied your
Right of Liberty, of Travel and of Locomotion, regardless if not as
much as if you are denied a Driver License. Even if you have a Driver
License, you still are denied the Right, as you really only have a
Permission.

We have the Right to Drive Safely.

On 25 Jun 2005 15:19:49 -0700, "proffsl" > wrote:

>Our States are Lying to us. Driving is not a Privilege. Driving is a
>Right. According to the Supreme Court, We have the Right of Locomotion
>ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways:
>
>"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
>
>Driving an Automobile is, by far, the Locomotion ordinarily used for
>Personal Travel on our Public Highways today.

Which is where your assertion falls flat on its face. It is not the
ONLY means of locomotion - you *do* have choices, whether you avail
yourself of them or not. Hence, your right of locomotion is not
infringed.

Frankly, you'd have an easier time proving that Federal Income Tax is
uncnstitutional.

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 09:27:23 -0700, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On 25 Jun 2005 15:19:49 -0700, "proffsl" > wrote:
>
>>Our States are Lying to us. Driving is not a Privilege. Driving is a
>>Right. According to the Supreme Court, We have the Right of Locomotion
>>ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways:
>>
>>"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
>>
>>Driving an Automobile is, by far, the Locomotion ordinarily used for
>>Personal Travel on our Public Highways today.
>
>Which is where your assertion falls flat on its face. It is not the
>ONLY means of locomotion - you *do* have choices, whether you avail
>yourself of them or not. Hence, your right of locomotion is not
>infringed.
>
>Frankly, you'd have an easier time proving that Federal Income Tax is
>uncnstitutional.


Not really...basically we have a RIGHT to drive and use highways. The
gvt would like you to think it's only a privilege, but then when have
you ever know our gvt to do anything but try to tell you what you
can't do.

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.

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> Proffsl wrote:
> >
> > Our States are Lying to us. Driving is not a Privilege. Driving is a
> > Right. According to the Supreme Court, We have the Right of
> > Locomotion ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public
> > Highways:
> >
> > "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.
> >
> > Driving an Automobile is, by far, the Locomotion ordinarily used for
> > Personal Travel on our Public Highways today.
>
> Which is where your assertion falls flat on its face. It is not the
> ONLY means of locomotion -

The Right recognized by the Supreme Court is the Right of Locomotion
ORDINARLY used for free transit from or through the territory of any
state. The Automobile is most definately the Locomotion Ordinarly used
for personal travel on our Public Highways today. In fact, the
Automobile is SO ORDINARY that it is often used exclusive of all other
forms of Locomotion, dominating the Public Roads to the point where no
other form of Locomotion may be safely or even legally used.
Extraordinary means of Locomotion often interfere with the Ordinary
means of Locomotion, for which the Extraordinary means of Locomotion
may be prohibited.


> you *do* have choices, whether you avail yourself of them or
> not. Hence, your right of locomotion is not infringed.

Simply because there are numerous forms in which to exercise a Right
does not mean any of those forms may be arbitrarily prohibited without
infringing upon that Right. For example, Speech may be exercised in
many forms, among them including Political, Religious, Scientific,
Slander and Dangerous. We can't just arbitrarily prohibit any of these
forms of Speech without infringing upon the Right of Speech itself. A
form of Speech must present a Danger or a Harm to others before Police
Powers may be invoked, and that form of Speech outright Prohibited.
Slander against one harms their Innocence, thereby Violating their
Right of Innocence. Inciting a Riot, Endangers the lives of others,
Violating their Right of Life. Therefore, Slander and Inciting a Riot
may be outright prohibited by Police Powers or by Prosecution. But,
Political, Religious or Scientific Speech poses none of these immediate
threats to the Rights of others, and therefore none of them may be
arbitrarily prohibited.

Additionally, if a certain form of exercising a Right is prohibited by
Police Powers, NOBODY can obtain a License to exercise that form, as
invoking such Police Powers means that form Violates the Rights of
others. For example, Slander is rightfully prohibited, and NOBODY can
obtain a License to Slander. Inciting a Riot is rightfully prohibited,
and NOBODY can obtain a License to Incite a Riot.

Therefore, if using the Automobile on Public Highways invokes Police
Powers, that is to Judge the use of the Automobile on Public Highways
Dangerous, and in Violation of the Rights of others Travelers, and to
be outright Prohibited. At that point, NOBODY may obtain a License to
use an Automobile on Public Highways.

Otherwise, if the use of the Automobile on Public Highways is assumed
by the public to pose acceptable levels of risk (which is witnessed to
by the fact that the Automobile is by far the Locomotion Ordinarly used
for Personal Travel on our Public Highways), then Police Powers are not
justified, and is a Right as a part of our Right of Locomotion and of
Liberty.

proffsl wrote:
> Our States are Lying to us. Driving is not a Privilege. Driving is a
> Right. According to the Supreme Court, We have the Right of Locomotion
> ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways:

It would be nice if the courts agreed with you. If you want to bring
that goal closer, I suggest joining NMA (motorists.org).

proffsl wrote:
> Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> > Proffsl wrote:
> > >
> > > "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 t=
he
> > > 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=2E
> > >
> > > Driving an Automobile is, by far, the Locomotion ordinarily used for
> > > Personal Travel on our Public Highways today.
> >
> > Which is where your assertion falls flat on its face. It is not the
> > ONLY means of locomotion -
>
> The Right recognized by the Supreme Court is the Right of Locomotion
> ORDINARLY used for free transit from or through the territory of any
> state. The Automobile is most definately the Locomotion Ordinarly used
> for personal travel on our Public Highways today.

The case to which you are referring is a 1900 decision. At that time,
automobiles were virtually unknown. I doubt the decision has been
revisited since - but you're the fanatic. You find the cases that say
I'm wrong.
--
C=2ER. Krieger
(a lawyer who knows the d.l. is just a privilege)

Motorhead Lawyer wrote:
> Proffsl wrote:
> >
> > The Right recognized by the Supreme Court is the Right of Locomotion
> > ORDINARLY used for free transit from or through the territory of any
> > state. The Automobile is most definitely the Locomotion Ordinarily
> > used for personal travel on our Public Highways today.
>
> The case to which you are referring is a 1900 decision. At that time,
> automobiles were virtually unknown.

So? The Constitution predates even that. Does that somehow invalidate
the Constitution? NO.

The case I refer to speaks of the Locomotion Ordinarily used for
Personal Travel on our Public Highways. What ever the Locomotion
Ordinarily used may be at any given time. A hundred and fifty years
ago, the Locomotion Ordinarily used was the horse and buggy, and nobody
would have argued that one didn't have a Right to Travel by Horse and
Buggy. Today, the Locomotion Ordinarily used is the Automobile, yet
you have been convinced it is somehow an exception.

When our Right to Keep and Bear arms was invoked, firearms technology
consisted only of muskets and cannons. But, of course, the term "Arms"
does not refer to any specific firearms technology, but instead to ARMS
in the broad sense. When the repeating rifle was later developed, the
Right to keep and bear arms was understood to protect it as well.

Before our forefathers wrote the Constitution, there had been many
developments in technology, all of which I'm sure they were aware.
And, I'm also sure they were aware of the fact that New technologies
would be developed AFTER the writing of the Constitution. That is why
they used broader terms than just the current technology allowed. They
didn't recognize our Right to keep and bear MUSKETS. They knew muskets
were a new technology of the time. And, they knew new technologies
would likely develop later on. SO, they recognized our Right to keep
and bear ARMS.

Likewise, the Supreme Court didn't recognize our Right to Travel by
HORSE AND BUGGY. Instead, they recognized our Right to Travel by the
Locomotion Ordinarily used. And, today, it is undeniable that the
Automobile IS the Locomotion Ordinarily used for Travel.


> I doubt the decision has been revisited since

The decision has been used as precedence in many cases.


> - but you're the fanatic.

Oh my! A Personal Assault! An Ad Homimen. Will I ever survive your
scathing words?

YES.

> --
> C.R. Krieger
> (a lawyer who knows the d.l. is just a privilege)

Hahahahahaha!!!

"proffsl" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Motorhead Lawyer wrote:
>> Proffsl wrote:
>> >
>> > The Right recognized by the Supreme Court is the Right of Locomotion
>> > ORDINARLY used for free transit from or through the territory of any
>> > state. The Automobile is most definitely the Locomotion Ordinarily
>> > used for personal travel on our Public Highways today.
>>
>> The case to which you are referring is a 1900 decision. At that time,
>> automobiles were virtually unknown.
>
> So? The Constitution predates even that. Does that somehow invalidate
> the Constitution? NO.
>
> The case I refer to speaks of the Locomotion Ordinarily used for
> Personal Travel on our Public Highways. What ever the Locomotion
> Ordinarily used may be at any given time. A hundred and fifty years
> ago, the Locomotion Ordinarily used was the horse and buggy, and nobody
> would have argued that one didn't have a Right to Travel by Horse and
> Buggy. Today, the Locomotion Ordinarily used is the Automobile, yet
> you have been convinced it is somehow an exception.
>
> When our Right to Keep and Bear arms was invoked, firearms technology
> consisted only of muskets and cannons. But, of course, the term "Arms"
> does not refer to any specific firearms technology, but instead to ARMS
> in the broad sense. When the repeating rifle was later developed, the
> Right to keep and bear arms was understood to protect it as well.
>
> Before our forefathers wrote the Constitution, there had been many
> developments in technology, all of which I'm sure they were aware.
> And, I'm also sure they were aware of the fact that New technologies
> would be developed AFTER the writing of the Constitution. That is why
> they used broader terms than just the current technology allowed. They
> didn't recognize our Right to keep and bear MUSKETS. They knew muskets
> were a new technology of the time. And, they knew new technologies
> would likely develop later on. SO, they recognized our Right to keep
> and bear ARMS.
>
> Likewise, the Supreme Court didn't recognize our Right to Travel by
> HORSE AND BUGGY. Instead, they recognized our Right to Travel by the
> Locomotion Ordinarily used. And, today, it is undeniable that the
> Automobile IS the Locomotion Ordinarily used for Travel.
>
>
>> I doubt the decision has been revisited since
>
> The decision has been used as precedence in many cases.
>
>
>> - but you're the fanatic.
>
> Oh my! A Personal Assault! An Ad Homimen. Will I ever survive your
> scathing words?
>
> YES.
>
>> --
>> C.R. Krieger
>> (a lawyer who knows the d.l. is just a privilege)
>
> Hahahahahaha!!!
>

Actually, you make a interesting argument. Perhaps you need to get a good
attorney and file a motion with the courts. Perhaps we'll see your case in
the Supreme Court some day..that is unless the government takes your
property under imminent domain to build a bowling alley first.

James C. Reeves wrote:
>
> Actually, you make a interesting argument.

And, I complement you on being able to resist the trained knee jerk
reaction I get from others. Government has brainwashed people so much
they don't even know their kneeing themself in the groin. Attack or
ignore the Rights of others, and you attack or ignore your own Rights.


> Perhaps you need to get a good attorney and file a motion with the
> courts. Perhaps we'll see your case in the Supreme Court some day..
> that is unless the government takes your property under imminent
> domain to build a bowling alley first.

I have considered this path, and have spoken with a lawyer. Thing is,
government has so convinced people they don't have this Right, Judges
have no problem judging against it. Therefore, I have a much larger
obstacle before me than a Judge. That obstacle is to convince
Americans they do have this Right. Once that is done, the court case
would be easire to win.

So, I suffer the beligerance and assults of the knee jerks in the hope
they'll wake up one night when it dawns on them: "He's Right! I do
have that Right."

> > > The Right recognized by the Supreme Court is the Right of Locomotion
> > > ORDINARLY used for free transit from or through the territory of any
> > > state. The Automobile is most definitely the Locomotion Ordinarily
> > > used for personal travel on our Public Highways today.
> >
> > The case to which you are referring is a 1900 decision. At that time,
> > automobiles were virtually unknown.
>
> So? The Constitution predates even that. Does that somehow invalidate
> the Constitution? NO.

No, but you're talking about theory and not reality. What good does
it do to argue about your rights when you're locked up in jail?