1 Search Result for "leagal"

• Is Driving A Right Or Privileg

  • From: Tattoo_Gypsy
  • Description:

    Recently a blogger on here wrote that quote; "Operating a vehicle on the street, roads or highways or any place accessible to the public is a PRIVILEGE, not a right as many think, that is granted by the state."

    It is funny (not) how the government has made so many Americans believe that certain things are supposedly privileges, granted to us by some kind of kind and benevolent government, and are not rights, which is exactly what they truly are.

    Because in fact, operating a vehicle on the street, roads or highways or any place accessible to the public is a RIGHT.

    So before we go any further, let's examine a few FACTS.

    From the courts:

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

    "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." [Emphasis added] Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.

    And I also have many more court citations I could post here. But unless you enjoy reading legalese just for fun, it gets a bit too much to post, not to mention pretty redundant.

    Bottom line, It is clear 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 then where does the misconception come from that the use of the public road is always and only a privilege?

    Sorry, have to go back to some more court decisions;

    "...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; Hadfield, supra; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; and again, other cases too numerous to mention.

    OK, now it is starting to make a bit of sense. 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." Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982.

    So the states decided to screw around, and make the idea of doing business on the highways, mean the same thing as a private person in their car.  

    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."

    "This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities." State vs. City of Spokane, supra.

    Now this legal 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.

    "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, p.987.

     

    Clearly, 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 AND federal have all held so.

    Keep in mind it is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes.

    But 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...

    · Traveling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads, which is our Right;

    · 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." Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, supra.

     Now 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 average 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."

     I could go on and on quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers the question - Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? 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 one word withstanding."

     

    In the same Article, it says just who within our government 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..."

     

    In this manner, the government does not have the authority for the conversion of our Unalienable Rights and Freedoms into the slavery of governmental "Privilege" where an Inalienable Right can be transformed into a Crime.

    
    So there is no confusion, allow me to define Unalienable Right.

    The Declaration of Independence states that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness . . ."

    The Declaration recognizes that unalienable rights are defined as coming from our Creator, NOT any person or Government.

    Neither the Declaration or the Constitution could enumerate all the rights which were to be protected. They could, however, point to the source of rights - our Creator - for reference by future generations.

    So our RIGHTS are inherent. They are not gifts from, or bestowed upon us, from some government or law. They exist above and beyond the law and government. Meaning the government (at least not without due process) cannot remove those RIGHTS from us, nor turn those rights into privileges.

     

    This ultimately means, free people have a right to travel on the roads that are provided by their servants (in other words: our government) 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 drivers 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 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.

    One aspect of 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.

    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.

    
    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate them. The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.

    There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.

    Still do not believe me that driving on the public roads is a RIGHT and not a privilege?

    Think about it this way; if you got a letter from the Department of Motor Vehicles that informed you that your driving "privileges" have been suspended simply because your sister refused to go on a date with the head of the Department of Motor Vehicles, you'd have a very good case in court when you sued them. If driving really was only a "privilege", you'd have no legal recourse.

     

    Ok, ok, I'll admit most people (including me) are willing to accept the inconvenience of first demonstrating that we can safely operate a vehicle before being able do operate one on a public road.

    But that does not mean that we accept that driving is a "privilege" that can be whisked away by the State at any time for any reason.

    The reason this whole thing bugs me is the fact that some in the Government now are trying to say that other things are only privileges, "just like driving is a privilege." For example, consider that Obama apparently considers free speech to be a privilege.

    I think you'll find most state constitutions have language regarding the "right to travel" under the common law vs statutory law which most states operated under until the 1930's.

    When most states adopted statutory laws, the right to travel became a "privilege" given to citizens by virtue of a drivers license. Likewise, getting married is privilege given to couples by the state through the marriage license. Anything granted to you by the state is a privilege, not a right.

    But that does not mean to say that the state or federal government, has the legal or constitutional RIGHT to turn YOUR OR MY INALIENABLE RIGHTS into a Privilege.

    Remember:

    "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." -Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442

    And:

    "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 door to an 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 and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state. ...He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." -Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1905)

     

    "The makers of the Constitution conferred, as against the government, the Right to be let alone; the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men." -United States Supreme Court Justice Brandeis in Olmstead v. United States (1928)

    Semper Fi

    Tattoo Gypsy

    http://tattoo-gypsy@blogspot.com

  • Blog post
  • 9 months ago
  • Views: 725