CureZone
Old Format -> CureZone.INFO
Driver Licensing vs. Right to Travel
Forum: Courts, Law and Justice
 
  • Driver Licensing vs. Right to Travel   Ohfor07   8y
    This is my avatar. Click here to see my profile.
    Ohfor07
    Driver Licensing vs. Right to Travel
    PM
    Date: 12/8/2006 10:12:05 AM   ( 8y ago )
    Hits:   10945   Size: 18216 char.   Already alerted!   Already alerted!

    During those moments of life, call them idle moments, perhaps slow days if you will, days for instance when you've already shopped till you dropped and the day still has plenty additional time to throw in your way before it passes and the next new day comes, days when it seems that there is just nothing good to watch on TV no matter how diligently you surf and no matter how far you are willing to compromise and lower your yourself in order to find the semblance of content you feel worthy of vegetating in front of, do your stray thoughts ever allow you a moment to wonder about things, like, inalienable rights versus state-granted privileges? . Real ID, a somewhat recent legislative mandate by the the federal state upon the state states IE. each and every state across the Union from New York to California, is presently scheduled to be put into operation by the spring of 2008. 

    ------------------

    excerpts from:  http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml

    The forgotten legal maxim is that free people have a right to travel on the roads which are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The driver's license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce, or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and if they use extraordinary machines on the roads. If you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a driver's license

    ~

    If ever a judge understood the public's right to use the public roads, it was Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Justice Tolman stated:

    "Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment."

    Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.

    The words of Justice Tolman ring most prophetically in the ears of Citizens throughout the country today as the use of the public roads has been monopolized by the very entity which has been empowered to stand guard over our freedoms, i.e., that of state government.

    ~

    "Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property ... and is regarded as inalienable."

    16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987

     

    .........

    Justice Tolman was concerned about the State prohibiting the Citizen from the "most sacred of his liberties," the Right of movement, the Right of moving one's self from place to place without threat of imprisonment, the Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life.

    When the State allows the formation of a corporation it may control its creation by establishing guidelines (statutes) for its operation (charters). Corporations who use the roads in the course of business do not use the roads in the ordinary course of life. There is a difference between a corporation and an individual. The United States Supreme Court has stated:

    "...We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."
    "Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose."

    Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75

    Corporations engaged in mercantile equity fall under the purview of the State's admiralty jurisdiction, and the public at large must be protected from their activities, as they (the corporations) are engaged in business for profit.

    "...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

    It will be necessary to review early cases and legal authority in order to reach a lawfully correct theory dealing with this Right or "privilege." We will attempt to reach a sound conclusion as to what is a "Right to use the road" and what is a "privilege to use the road". Once reaching this determination, we shall then apply those positions to modern case decision.  

    ~

    "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

    Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491

    and ...

    "The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."

    Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489

    and ...

    "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights."

    Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946

    Streets and highways are established and maintained for the purpose of travel and transportation by the public. Such travel may be for business or pleasure.

    "The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived."

    Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22?1;
    Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934;
    Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607;
    25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163

    and ...

    "The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

    Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579

    So we can see that a Citizen has a Right to travel upon the public highways by automobile and the Citizen cannot be rightfully deprived of his Liberty. So where does the misconception that the use of the public road is always and only a privilege come from?

    "... 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, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion."

    State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073;
    Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171;
    Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;
    Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516

    Here the court held that a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways, but that he did not have the right to conduct business upon the highways. On this point of law all authorities are unanimous.

    "Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that 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, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain."

    Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
    Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82

    and ...

    "The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus."

    State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864

    What is this Right of the Citizen which differs so "radically and obviously" from one who uses the highway as a place of business? Who better to enlighten us than Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of Washington State? In State vs. City of Spokane, supra, the Court also noted a very "radical and obvious" difference, but went on to explain just what the difference is:

    "The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a common right to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary."

    and ...

    "This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities."

    State vs. City of Spokane, supra.

    This position does not hang precariously upon only a few cases, but has been proclaimed by an impressive array of cases ranging from the state courts to the federal courts.

    "the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary."

    Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781

    and ...

    "The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business."

    Thompson vs. Smith, supra.;
    Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784

    There is no dissent among various authorities as to this position. (See Am. Jur. [1st] Const. Law, 329 and corresponding Am. Jur. [2nd].)

    "Personal liberty -- or the right to enjoyment of life and liberty -- is one of the fundamental or natural rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from nor dependent on the U.S. Constitution. ... It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights [remember the words of Justice Tolman, supra.] as sacred as the right to private property ... and is regarded as inalienable."

    16 C.J.S. Const. Law, Sect.202, Pg. 987

    As we can see, the distinction between a "Right" to use the public roads and a "privilege" to use the public roads is drawn upon the line of "using the road as a place of business" and the various state courts have held so. But what have the U.S. Courts held on this point?

    "First, it is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes, and that their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit."

    Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251;
    Pachard vs Banton, 264 US 140, and cases cited;
    Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592;
    Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290;
    Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313

    So what is a privilege to use the roads? By now it should be apparent even to the "learned" that an attempt to use the road as a place of business is a privilege. The distinction must be drawn between ...

    1. Travelling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads, which is our Right; and ...
    2. Using the public roads as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business, which is a privilege.
    "[The roads] ... are constructed and maintained at public expense, and no person therefore, can insist that he has, or may acquire, a vested right to their use in carrying on a commercial business."

    Ex Parte Sterling, 53 SW.2d 294;
    Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82;
    Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.

    "When the public highways are made the place of business the state has a right to regulate their use in the interest of safety and convenience of the public as well as the preservation of the highways."

    Thompson vs. Smith, supra.

    "[The state's] right to regulate such use is based upon the nature of the business and the use of the highways in connection therewith."

    Ibid.

    "We know of no inherent right in one to use the highways for commercial purposes. The highways are primarily for the use of the public, and in the interest of the public, the state may prohibit or regulate ... the use of the highways for gain."

    Robertson vs. Dept. of Public Works, supra.

    There should be considerable authority on a subject as important a this deprivation of the liberty of the individual "using the roads in the ordinary course of life and business." However, it should be noted that extensive research has not turned up one case or authority acknowledging the state's power to convert the individual's right to travel upon the public roads into a "privilege."

    Therefore, it is concluded that the Citizen does have a "Right" to travel and transport his property upon the public highways and roads and the exercise of this Right is not a "privilege."

    excerpted from: http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml

    Your reply:
    Reply   CK  FCK  MCE
    Printer-friendly version of this page
    Email this message to a friend
    Bookmark this page/Add to Favorites or press Ctrl+D
    Alert Webmaster & Moderators
    Already alerted!  Already alerted!
    How do you feel about this message?     Like     Dislike       Hide this question

    3 of 3 (100%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?
    How do you feel about this message?     Like     Dislike       Hide this question

    Find & Order All Messages Posted by Ohfor07
    by
    DISCLAIMER




    Medianet Ads








    Medianet Ads




 
Medianet Ads



 



 
Medianet Ads

 
Back To Top

Selected Ads from CureZone Sponsors: Become a Sponsor

VIP

Oxy-Powder® Official
Refresh & Detoxify Your Body Fast. Free Shipping On Orders. Buy Now!
Eliminate Herpes
Information on the revolutionary Dynamiclear Combat Kit - External & Interna...
Heal Type 2 Diabetes
Discover The Real Cause Type 2 Diabetes…And How To Turn It On Its Head I...
 
 

PLAT

Iodine Supports Thyroid Health
#1 Rated Iodine Supplement! 180-Day Money Back Guarantee. Free...
Bowel Cleanse Kit
Turmeric Capsules
Free Dr. Clark DVD!
Bestselling author Dr. Hulda Clark claims to have cured cancer. Is she a ...
 
 

GOLD

Alkaline Water Benefits?
Can you get health benefits from drinking alkaline ionized water? Wh...
Proven Candida Diet
The Only Legitimate Diet for Treating Candida in 30 Days
Utopia Silver Supplements
Mineral & Vitamin Organ Support. Find the supplements you need to s...
Destroy Parasites Quickly
Learn How to Destroy Parasites And Be Rid of Your Unbearable Sympto...
 
 

GOLD

Royal Tea
”This tea literally saved my life.” - Ricky
Detoxify and Cleanse Naturally
Drink ionized alkaline waters medically proven health benefits...
Dr. Clark: Best Prices You Will Find!
Tools for Healing is the number one source for products...
Natural Cancer Remedies
 
 

SILVER

J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H. Restore lost reserves. J.CROW’S® Lugol’s Iodine Soluti...
Best Candida Treatment
Get rid of chronic Candida.Works fast.Guaranteed Results!
The Tesla Shield™
Transformational Technology For Mind Body And Soul.
The Krill Miracle™
Concentrated Omega 3, 6 & 9, Many Times More Powerful than Fish Oil
 
 
Back To Top How many people click on the sponsord links? Become a Sponsor

 


 

Donate to CureZone

 


Share:  Facebook  MySpace  Digg  Reddit  StumbleUpon  Furl this page  Delicious  BlinkList  dzone  Simpy.com  Fark.com  BlogMarks  Wists.com  Google

Translate This Page:

French    German    Spain    Italian    Dutch    Russian    Portuguese    Japanese    Korean    Arabic    Chinese Simplified



 


Guest Book - Liver Flush FAQ - News - Link Exchange - Add URL - How To Exchange Links? - About Global Directory

Terms of Service - Privacy Policy - Spam Policy - Disclaimer - Guidelines & Rules - Forum Trolls - Fair use notice

Staff's pages:  Owen - Wrenn - Maya


CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with www.netatlantic.com


Contact Us - About - Donors - Stats



Copyright 2014  curezone.com


fetched in 0.64 sec at 7/28/2014 11:32:05 AM, requested by 54.80.235.73, referred by http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=787698 , requested 1 pages during this session, y=9