If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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). |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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!!! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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." |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
> > > 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? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Help, AWD, Tranfer case / front drive shaft question...... | No Email Address | Ford Explorer | 3 | June 19th 05 02:18 AM |
We have the Right to Drive Safely | proffsl | Driving | 4 | June 12th 05 11:22 AM |
Drive Clean, old A2s, and NOx emissions | Garry Tarr | VW water cooled | 1 | November 9th 04 12:18 PM |
Honda Passport - "Power" and "Winter" drive switches | ajpdla | Honda | 5 | November 5th 04 03:32 AM |
Vibrations when i'm standing still on my A4 from 2000 when it is in 'drive' | Eykens Kenny | Audi | 2 | July 15th 04 05:42 AM |