The Right to Travel

DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOWER COURTS,

HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS
Free people have a right to travel on the roads that are provided by their publi
c servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing
cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a licen
se requires the surrender of a Right. The drivers license can be required of peo
ple who use the highways for trade, commerce or hire; that is, if they earn thei
r living on the road, and they use extraordinary machines on the roads. In other
words, if you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to
have a drivers license.
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 i
mprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law. Streets and highways are
established and maintained for the purpose of travel and transportation by the p
ublic. 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 a
nd fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully
deprived.
Where Rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule maki
ng or legislation that would abrogate them. The claim and exercise of a Constitu
tional Right cannot be converted into a crime. There can be no sanction or penal
ty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional Rights. I believe
a great fraud has been perpetrated against the free people of the United States
of America. Be advised that fraud vitiates the most solemn contract
For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the bel
ief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen
only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license
to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before h
is use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers,
and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disp
rove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government ap
proval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:
CASE #1: "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 in
dividuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE
221.
CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to tra
nsport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere
privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right wh
ich he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thom
pson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states
have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), a
nd that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.
CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cann
ot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Du
lles, 357 US 116, 125.
CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not o
we its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a
natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
As hard as it is for those in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for s
peculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the Inalie
nable Right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are n
ot damaging or violating property or Rights of others. Government -- in requirin
g the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and D
UI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, t
he people's common law Right to Travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means t
hat the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law
enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed wit
h actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restri
ct the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his Right to travel is
a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most st
ate constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American c
itizen has always had the Inalienable Right to travel raises profound questions
for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws.
The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enfor
cing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must
be some way that a state can legally put restrictions -- such as licensing requ
irements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name
just a few -- on a citizen's constitutionally protected Rights. Is that so?
For the answer, let us look, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very
issue.
In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:
"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."
And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,
"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and comm
on reason are null and void."
Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point -- that
there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on
rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward:
"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be
defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule mak
ing or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 4
91.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a cri
me." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise o
f constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
I could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constit
ution itself answers our question - Can a government legally put restrictions on
the Rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is fou
nd in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pur
suance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every
State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State
to the Contrary not one word withstanding."
In Article VI it also says just who within our government that is bound by this
Supreme Law:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the sever
al State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the Unit
ed States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to s
upport this Constitution..."
Here's an interesting question: Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such ac
ts by officials? If law enforcement officials are to follow the letter of the la
w, (as they are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in su
ch unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and feder
al crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected Righ
ts. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a
Right belonging to the people.
These are:
1. By lawfully amending the constitution,
or
2. By a person knowingly waiving a particular Right.
Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of
people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the j
urisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now
legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registra
tions. There are basically two groups of people in this category.
More- http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/right2travel.shtml