home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Black Crawling Systems Archive Release 1.0
/
Black Crawling Systems Archive Release 1.0 (L0pht Heavy Industries, Inc.)(1997).ISO
/
tezcat
/
Law
/
%a4Traveling.txt
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1996-07-08
|
12KB
|
258 lines
From the Radio Free Michigan archives
ftp://141.209.3.26/pub/patriot
If you have any other files you'd like to contribute, e-mail them to
bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu.
------------------------------------------------
DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS,
HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS
By Jack McLamb
(from Aid & Abet Newsletter)
For years professionals within the criminal justice system have
acted on the belief 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
his use of the state highways was considered legal.
Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware
that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a
privilege and therefore requires government approval 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 individuals 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 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 law 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 directly or conclusively that citizens
of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or
restriction (license), and 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 cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth
Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right
that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recog-
nized 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 of us in law enforcement to believe,
there is no room for speculation in these court decisions.
American citizens do 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 others.
Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses,
and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question
-- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right
to travel.
Page 1 of 4
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not.
This means that 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 with actual facts state that case law is over-
whelming in determining that to restrict 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 state constitutions.
That means it is unlawful.
The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalien-
able 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 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 to name just a few -- on a
citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?
For the answer, let us look, once again, 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 common 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 restric-
tions 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 making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be con-
verted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this
exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision;
however, the Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government
Page 2 of 4
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..."
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 who 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 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 jurisdiction 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
registrations.
There are basically two groups of people in this category:
(1) Citizens who involve themselves in commerce 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...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.
There are many court cases that confirm and point out the difference
between the right of the citizen to travel and a government privilege and
there are numerous other court decisions that spell out the jurisdiction
issue in these two distinctly different activities.
Page 3 of 4
However, because of space restrictions, we will leave it to officers
to research it further for themselves.
(2) The second group of citizens that is legally under the
jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who have voluntarily and
knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and unrestricted by
requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a
state driver's license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc.
(In other words, by contract.)
We should remember what makes this legal and not a violation of the
common law right to travel is that they knowingly volunteer by contract
to waive their rights. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly
placed under the state's 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 applied for and
received licenses, registrations and obtained insurance 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
and rights.
We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state
licenses and vehicle registrations 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 - laws that are not laws at
all.
An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to
understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an
oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or
county ordinances, but the law that supercedes all other laws -- the U.S.
Constitution.
If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the
supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer's duty
is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling --
discussed earlier -- in mind before issuing citations concerning
licensing, registration, and insurance:
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be
converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.
And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one's daily
activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.
Page 4 of 4
------------------------------------------------
(This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the
Radio Free Michigan site by the archive maintainer.
All files are ZIP archives for fast download.
E-mail bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu)
Other sites are invited to mirror these files, with attribution to RFM.