"U.S. Courts affirm that Citizens have the right to
travel freely
on the
public right of way".
For many years Professionals within the criminal justice System have acted
upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a
privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their
respective state government in the form of the issuance of a permit or
license to that Particular individual. Legislators, police officers and
court officials are becoming aware that there are now court decisions that
prove the fallacy of the legal opinion that" driving is a privilege and
therefore requires government approval, i.e. a license". Some of these
cases are:
Case # 1 - "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. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory
insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)
Case # 2 - "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways
and to transport 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 right which he has under the right to life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have
a right to travel, without approval or restriction, (license,) and that
this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court
decisions that expound the same facts:
Case # 3 - "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 U.S. 116, 125.
Case # 4 - "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 l4th Amendment and by
other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C.
287, 293.
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
As hard as it is for those of us in Law enforcement to believe, there
is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen
does indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in
any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or
rights of
another.
Government, in requiring the people to file for "drivers Licenses,
vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for
vehicle inspections, DUI/DWI roadblocks etc. without question, are
"restricting", and therefore violating, the Peoples common law right to
travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject of the right to
travel? Apparently not. The American Citizens and Lawmen Association
in conjunction with The U.S. Federal Law Research Center are presently
involved in studies in several areas involving questions on constitutional
law. One of the many areas under review is the area of "Citizens right to
travel." In an interview a spokesmen stated: "Upon researching this
subject over many months, substantial case law has presented itself that
completely substantiates the position that the "right to travel
unrestricted upon the nations highways" is and has always been a
fundamental right of every Citizen."
This means that the "beliefs and opinions" our state legislators, the
courts, and those of as involved in the law enforcement profession have
acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual
facts state that U.S. case law is overwhelming in determining that - to
restrict, in any fashion, the movement of the individual American in the
free exercise of their right to travel upon the roadways, (excluding
"commerce" which the state Legislatures are correct in regulating), is a
serious breach of those
freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution, and most state Constitutions,
i.e - it is Unlawful.
THE REVELATION THAT THE AMERICAN CITIZEN HAS ALWAYS HAD THE INALIENABLE
RIGHT TO TRAVEL RAISES PROFOUND QUESTIONS TO THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN
MAKING AND ENFORCING STATE LAWS.
The first of such questions may very well be - If the States have been
enforcing 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 requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration,
vehicle
inspections, D.W.I. roadblocks, to name just a few, on a Citizens
constitutionally protected right. Is that not so?
For the answer to this question let us look, once again, to the U.S.
courts for a determination on this very issue.
The case of Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516. states very plainly: "The
State cannot diminish rights of the people."
"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
U.S. 22, 24.
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:
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no
rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." - Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into
a crime.· - Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this
exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945. ( There
is no question that a citation/ticket issued by a police officer, for no
drivers license, no current vehicle registration, no vehicle insurance
etc. which carries a fine or jail time, is a penalty or sanction, and is
indeed "converting a Right into a crime".)
We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision, however, In
addition, the Constitution itself answers our question- "Can a government
legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime,
for any reason"? (Such as in this particular case - when the government
believes it to be for the safety and welfare of the people).
The answer is found in ARTICLE SIX of the U.S. Constitution:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made
in Pursuance 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 withstanding". (This tells us that
the U.S.
Constitution is to be upheld over any state, county, or city Laws that are
in opposition to it.)
In the same Article it goes on to say just who it is within our
governments that is bound by this Supreme Law:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the
several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both
of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or
Affirmation, to support this Constitution;". - ART. 6 U.S. CONST.
We know that Police officers, are a part of the Executive branch. We are
"Executive Officers".
Article 6 above, is called the SUPREMACY CLAUSE, and it clearly states
that, under every circumstance, the above listed officials in these United
States must hold this documents tenets supreme over any other laws,
regulations, or orders. Every U.S. Police officer knows that they have
sworn a oath to the people of our nation that we will not only protect
their lives and property, but, that we will uphold, and protect their
freedoms and rights under the Supreme laws of this nation, - the U. S.
Constitution.
In this regard then, we must agree that those within government that
restrict a Citizens rights, (such as restricting the peoples right to
travel,) are acting in violation of his or her oath of office and are
actually committing a crime against such Citizens. Here's an interesting
question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials?
If we are to follow the "letter of the law (as we are sworn to do), this
places officials that involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an
unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to
violate, or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights.
Our system of law dictates the fact 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 in our present system has arisen because many
millions of people have waived their right to travel "unrestricted" upon
the roadways of the states and opted into the jurisdiction of the state
for various reasons. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are
now legally regulated by state law, the proper courts, and "sworn,
constitutionally empowered officers-of-the-law," and must acquire proper
permits, registrations, insurance, etc.
There are basically two groups of people in this category:
#1 - Any citizen that involves themselves in "commerce," (business for
private gain), upon the highways of the state.
Here is what the courts have said about this:
"...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 license which the legislature
may grant or withhold at its discretion..." - State v Johnson, 243 P.
1073, 1078.
Other U.S. court cases that confirm and point out the difference between
the "right" of the citizen to travel and a government "privilege" are -
Barney v Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v City of Spokane, 186 P.
864.; Ex Parte Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781.; Teche Lines v
Danforth, 12
So.2d 784.
There are numerous other court decisions that spell out the JURISDICTION
issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because of
space restrictions we will leave it up to officers to research it further
for themselves. (See last page for additional references).
#2 - The second group of citizens that are legally under the jurisdiction
of the state is the individual citizen who has voluntarily and knowingly
waived their right to travel "unregulated and unrestricted" by requesting
placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state -
drivers license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other
words "by contract only".)
We should remember what makes this "legal," and not a violation of the
individual's common law right to travel "unrestricted" is that they
knowingly volunteer, freely, by contract, to waive their right. If they
were
forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the States powers, the courts
have said it is a clear violation of their rights.
This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the
people in each state have filed, and received, licenses, registrations,
insurance etc. after erroneously being advised by their government that it
was mandatory?
Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming
informed about this important issue and the difference between "Privileges
vs. Rights". We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying
state licenses, vehicle registrations etc., have no knowledge of the
rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S.
Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. "laws of no effect". In
other words - "LAWS THAT ARE NOT LAWS AT ALL."
OUR SWORN DUTY
An area of serious consideration for every police officer, is to
understand that the most important law in our land he has taken an oath to
protect, defend, AND ENFORCE, is not state laws, nor city or county
ordinances, but, that law that supercede all other laws in our nation, -
the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular police officer's state, or
local community are in conflict with the SUPREME LAW of our nation, there
Is no question that the officer's duty is to "uphold the U.S.
Constitution."
What does this mean to the "patrol officer" who will be the only sworn
"Executive Officer" on the scene, when knowledgeable Citizens raise
serious objections over possession of insurance, drivers licenses and
other restrictions? It definitely means these officers will be faced with
a hard decision. (Most certainly if that decision affects state, city or
county revenues, such as the issuing of citations do.)
Example: If a state legislator, judge or a superior tells a police officer
to proceed and enforce a contradictory, (illegal), state law rather than
the Supreme Law of this country, what is that "sworn officer" to do?
Although we may not want to hear it, there is but one right answer, - "the
officer is duty bound to uphold his oath of office" and obey the highest
laws of the nation. THIS IS OUR SWORN DUTY AND IT'S THE LAW!
Such a strong honest stand taken by a police officer, upholding his or her
oath of office, takes moral strength of character. It will, without
question, "SEPARATE THE MEN FROM THE BOYS." Such honest and straight
forward decisions on behalf of a government official have often caused
pressure to
be applied to force such officers to set aside, or compromise their morals
or convictions.
As a solace for those brave souls in uniform that will stand up for law
and justice, even when it's unpopular, or uncomfortable to do so...let me
say this. In any legal stand-off over a sworn official "violating" or
"upholding" their oath of office, those that would side with the
"violation" should inevitable lose.
Our Founding Fathers assured us, on many occasions, the following:
Defending our freedoms in the face of people that would for "expedients
sake," or behind the guise, "for the safety and welfare of the masses,"
ignore people's rights, would forever demand sacrifice and vigilance from
those that desired to remain free. That sounds a little like - "Freedom is
not free!"
Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling, that
was covered earlier, in mind before issuing citations in regard to
"mandatory licensing, registration and insurance" - verses - "the right of
the people to travel unencumbered":
"THE CLAlM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RlGHT CANNOT BE
CONVERTED INTO A CRIME." - Miller v U.S., 230 F 2d 486. 489.
And as we have seen, "traveling freely," going about ones daily
activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.
Aid&Abet Newsletter Mon, 03 Feb 2003 14:09:19 -0600
P.O.BOX 8787, PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85066
CLARIFICATON:
The courts state that a Citizen has an unalienable right to travel freely.
This includes the right to travel freely for one's own private need and
enjoyment in an automobile on the public right of way. However, the term "motor
vehicle" has a special meaning in the law, as does the term "driving". "Motor
vehicles" are self-propelled devices used for "transport of
persons and/or property on the highway". "Transport" means
to move something in commerce. "Driving" is the act of controlling
a "motor vehicle". All of these terms relate to specifically
defined commercial use of the public right of way, and commercial use
of publicly maintained property is not a right, but a privilege that
can be taxed through licensure and registration.
The world gets crazier and crazier everyday, doesn't it? The world that many
of us thought was there, isn't. The bottom has dropped out of everything. The
illusions have been revealed, we have found out who has been pulling the strings
behind the scenes. Millions have lost their jobs, have mortgage
problems, and
foreclosure. What can be done? Amazingly, we have been mislead. We have been
taught that we can control government by voting. The founder of the Rothschild
dynasty, Mayer Amschel Bauer, told the secret of controlling the government
of a nation over 200 years ago. He said, "Permit
me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its
laws." Get
the picture? Your freedom hinges first on the nation's banks and money system.
It's all about 'commerce'. Freedom is connected with Debt Elimination for
each individual. Not only does this end
personal debt, it places the people first in line
as creditors to the National Debt ahead of the banks. They don't wish for
you to know this. It has to do with recognizing WHO you really are in A
New Beginning: A Practical Course in Miracles, an informational study. Is
your credit rating bad for reasons that seem out of your control? There are
ways of credit repair,
so you can men those broken fences too. Do you want to keep your children protected
from outside forces, there are ways of protecting
your children. Do you want
to keep your sons and daughters free from 'the draft'? Check this out.
Disclaimer - The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The myriad of facts, conjecture, perspectives, viewpoints, opinions, analyses,
and information in the articles, stories and commentaries posted on this site
range from cutting edge hard news and comment to extreme and unusual perspectives.
We choose not to sweep uncomfortable material under the rug - where it can
grow and fester. We choose not to censor skewed logic and uncomfortable rhetoric.
These things reflect the world as it now is - for better and worse. We present
multiple facts, perspectives, viewpoints, opinions, analyses, and information. If
you have more information on a certain subject that verifies it, challenges
it or make a comment on it, please e.mail
us.
Journalism is (or used to be) the profession of gathering and presenting a broad panorama of news about the events of our times and presenting it to readers for their own consideration. We believe in the intelligence, judgment and wisdom of our readers to discern for themselves among the data which appears on this site that which is valid and worthy...or otherwise. See full legal disclaimer
 |
|
