10 votes

Is driving an automobile really a privilege, or a right?

Since I can remember, I've been told by government employees, teachers, and even family (who I'm sure learned it from their schools) that driving a car is a privilege, not a right. Is driving a vehicle really just a privilege? Let's examine this for a moment.

If we believe in individual liberty and the free markets, then that alone is enough to disprove this theory. Before the automobile, people traveled by train, horse, or feet, and that was not considered a privilege, because to own a horse or ride on a train was your right to purchase, as it was the right for the person to sell you the horse or the ticket.

Freedom to travel, or freedom of movement, is a natural right. When the government states that driving is a privilege, and then requiring us to receive a license to operate a automobile, then they can take away that "privilege" if they feel the need, therefore they presume the right of being in charge of a form of travel. In this situation, they have come between us and a car dealership, negating a transaction between two free individuals within a so called "free market", which it no longer appears to be.

Finally, a driver license was not put in place until the 1900's, and in every state by 1918*, which means that before government assumed ownership of travel per automobile, it was a right, though short lived.


* http://amhistory.si.edu/onthemove/exhibition/exhibition_8_2....

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

larry becraft has debunked this many times

go to his website for the truth behind many of these PAYtriot myths.

deacon's picture

So,does that mean

we are all fed employees,and our rights no longer exist?
Afterall we are part of acorp.and the corp has laws,statutes,ordinances and codes for all their employees,this includes the right to travel freely

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Bingo! We don't have rights,

Bingo! We don't have rights, we have tempory privileges and there all being taking away.

I guess it's my privilege

To have my insurance co (GEICO) exercise their right to raise my premium $4/month with no tickets, accidents or claims ever.

To my Liberal Trolls:
"Really Don't mind if you sit this one out. Your words but a whisper, your deafness a shout. I may make you feel, but I can't make you think."
Ian Anderson 1972

Think it is a right...

...however, that right can be taken away if you have used it to commit a crime that has hurt others or behavior that can harm others as well. As far as "government/public" roads, well they belong to the people who pay for them, so that is irrelevant. The right to vote is taken away from felons, isn't it(although I'm not sure it should be in every case...another topic)? When it comes to privilege in driving, I would consider that something like being able to use a company car for personal use...that is a privilege.

The word "rights"


If this doesn't help you understand how to view and use the word "rights", nothing will.

Denise B's picture

Excellent Right to Travel Brief:

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPORT OF APPELLANT’S RIGHT TO TRAVEL This memorandum will be construed to comply with provisions necessary to establish presumed fact, Rule 301, Federal Rules of Evidence, and attending State rules. Should interested parties fail to rebut any given allegation of fact or matter of law addressed herein with specificity, the position will be construed as adequate to meet requirements of judicial notice, thus preserving fundamental law. Matters addressed herein, if not rebutted, will be construed to have general application. This memorandum addresses the issue of state statutes, regulation and licensing of a constitutional right to free travel upon the public roads of the Citizen. PRESPECTIVE 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, that of state government.
The “most sacred of liberties” of which, Justice Tolman spoke was personal liberty which have been placed in conflict by the plaintiff. The definition of personal liberty is:
“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.
This concept is further amplified by the definition of personal liberty: “Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion --to go where and when one pleases-- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the
welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which maybe permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.” [Emphasis added] II Am. Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect. 329. p.ll35. and further... “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.” 1 Blackstone’s Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__.777; Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed. 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 there from, 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 refusals 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.” [Emphasis added] Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 U.S. 43, 74-75, (1906).
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. 6571, 168, p. 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”. Defendant 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 modem 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 U.S. 436, 491, (1966).
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller vs. United States, 230 V. 486,489, (1956).
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights.” Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946, (1973).
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.’ [Emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 N. E. 22 (1929); Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 N. E. 934 (1891); Boon vs. Clark, 214 S. W. 607 (1919); 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 S.E. 579 (1930).
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 (1926); Hadfield, supra; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S. Ct. 256 (1924);
Here the courts 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 (1932); Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. 982 (1928).
“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 (1920).
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.
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 So. 782 (1915).
“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.” Teche Lines vs. Danforth., 12 So. 2d 784 (1943); Thompson vs. Smith, supra.
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, p.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. Binford, 287 U. S. 251 (1932); Packard vs. Banton, 264 U. S. 140 (1924), and cases cited; Frost Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 U. S. 582 (1926); Railroad commission vs. Jater-City Forwarding Co., 57 S.W.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 use 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 S.W. 2d 294; Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, 17 P. 2d 82 (1932); 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.
“[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 considering the importance of this deprivation on 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 must be 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 and it is not a “privilege”.
In order to understand the correct application of the statute in question, we must first define the terms used in connection with this point of law. As will be shown, many terms used today do
not, in their legal context, mean what we assume they mean, thus resulting in the misapplication of statutes in the instant case.
There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as:
“The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.” American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A. 2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200.
While the distinction is made clear between the two as the courts have stated: “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.” International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle' 251 P. 120.
The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile’.” City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 N.E. 2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232.
The distinction is made very clear in United State Code, Title 18, §31: “Motor vehicle” means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.
“Used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine, which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or hire.
The term “travel” is a significant term and is defined as: “The term ‘travel’ and ‘traveler’ are usually construed in their broad and general sense...so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure.” [Emphasis added] 25 Am. Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect. 427, p.717.
“Traveler-- One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business, or health.” Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45; Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3309.
“Travel -- To journey or to pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go from one place to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a train, an automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; make a journey.” Century Dictionary, p. 2034.
Therefore, the term “travel” or “traveler” refers to one who uses a conveyance to go from one place to another and included all those who use the highways as a matter of Right. Notice that in all these definitions the phrase “for hire” never occurs. This term “travel” or “traveler” implies by definition one who uses the road as a means to move from one place to another.
Therefore, one who uses the road in the ordinary course of life and business for the purpose of travel and transportation is a traveler.
The term “driver” in contradistinction to “traveler” is defined as: “Driver -- One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle...” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940.
Notice that this definition includes one who is “employed” in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this person could not be “traveling” on a journey, but is using the road as a place in the conduct of business.
Today we assume that a “traveler” is a “driver,” and a “driver” is an “operator.” However, this is not the case.
“It will be observed from the language of the ordinance that a distinction is to be drawn between the terms ‘operator’ and ‘driver’; the ‘operator’ of the service car being the person who is licensed to have the car on the streets in the business of carrying passengers for hire; while the 'driver' is the one who actually drives the car. However, in the actual prosecution of business, it was possible for the same person to be both ‘operator’ and ‘driver’.” Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 S.E. 2d 658.
To further clarify the definition of an “operator” the court observed that this was a vehicle “for hire” and that it was in the business of carrying passengers. This definition would seem to describe a person who is using the road as a place of business, or in other words, a person engaged in the “privilege” of using the road for gain.
This definition then is a further clarification of the distinction mentioned earlier and therefore:
1. Traveling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads as a matter of Right meets the definition of a traveler. 2. Using the road as a place of business as a matter of privilege meets the definition of a driver or an operator or both.
Having defined the terms “automobile,” “motor vehicle,” “traveler,” “driver,” and “operator,” the next term to define is “traffic”:
“...traffic thereon is to some extent destructive, therefore, the prevention of unnecessary duplication of auto transportation service will lengthen the life of the highways or reduce the cost of maintenance, the revenue derived by the state...will also tend toward the public welfare by producing at the expense of those operating for private gain, some small part of the cost of repairing the wear Northern Pacific R.R. Co. vs. Schoenfeldt, 213 P. 26.
Note: In the above, Justice Tolman expounded upon the key of raising revenue by taxing the “privilege” to use the public roads “at the expense of those operating for gain.”
In this case, the word “traffic” is used in conjunction with the unnecessary Auto Transportation Service, or in other words, “vehicles for hire.” The word “traffic” is another word, which is to be strictly construed to the conducting of business.
“Traffic-- Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, or the like. The passing of goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money...” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3307.
Here again, notice that this definition refers to one “conducting business.” No mention is made of one who is traveling in his automobile. This definition is of one who is engaged in the passing of a commodity or goods in exchange for money, i.e. vehicles for hire. Furthermore, the word “traffic” and “travel” must have different meanings, which the counts recognize. The difference is recognized in Ex Parte Dickey, supra:
“...In addition to this, cabs, hackney coaches, omnibuses, taxicabs, and hacks, when unnecessarily numerous, interfere with the ordinary traffic and travel and obstruct them.”
The court, by using both terms, signified its recognition of a distinction between the two. But, what was the distinction? We have already defined both terms, now to nail the matter down:
“The word ‘traffic’ is manifestly used here in secondary sense, and has reference to the business of transportation rather than to its primary meaning of interchange of commodities.” Allen vs. City of Bellingham, 163 P. 18 (1917).
Here the Supreme Court of the State of Washington has defined the word “traffic” (in either its primary or secondary sense) in reference to business, and not to mere travel! So it is clear that the term “traffic” is business related and therefore, it is a “privilege.” The net result being that “traffic” is brought under the (police) power of the legislature. The term has no application to one who is not using the roads as source of income or a place of business.
It seems only proper to define the word license,” as the definition of this word will be extremely important in understanding the statutes as they are properly applied:
“The permission, by competent authority to do an act which without permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort.” People vs. Henderson, 2l8 N.W. 2d 2, 4.
“Leave to do a thing which licensor could prevent.” Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F. 2d 116,118.
In order for these two definitions to apply in this case, the state would have to prove the position that the exercise of a Constitutional Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life and business is illegal, a trespass, or a tort, which the state could then regulate or prevent. This position, however, would raise constitutional questions, as this position would be diametrically opposed to fundamental constitutional law. (See “Conversion of a Right to a Crime,” infra.)
In the instant case, the proper definition of a “license” is: “a permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for consideration, to a person, firm, or corporation, to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business which is subject to regulation under the police power.” [emphasis added] Rosenblatt vs. California State Board of Pharmacy, 158 P. 2d 199, 203.
This definition would fall more in line with the “privilege” of carrying on business on the streets.
Most people tend to think that “licensing” is imposed by the state for the purpose of raising revenue, yet there may well be more subtle reasons contemplated; for when one seeks permission from someone to do something he invokes the jurisdiction of the “licensor” which, in this case, is the state. In essence, the licensee may well be seeking to be regulated by the “licensor.”
“A license fee is a charge made primarily for regulation, with the fee to cover costs and expenses of supervision or regulation.” State vs. Jackson, 60 Wisc. 2d 700; 211 N.W. 2d 480, 487.
The fee is the price; the regulation or control of the licensee, which is the real aim of the legislation.
Are these licenses really used to fund legitimate government or are they nothing more than a subtle introduction of police power into every facet of our lives? Have our “enforcement agencies” been diverted from crime prevention, perhaps through no fault of their own, now busying themselves as they “check” our papers to see that all are properly endorsed by the state?
At which Legislative Session will it be before we are forced to get a license for Lawnmowers, Generators, Tillers, and Air Conditioners or before Women are required to have a license for their “blender” or “mixer?” All have motors on them and the state can always use the revenue. At what point does the steady encroachment into our Liberty cease?
The confusion of the police power with the power of taxation usually arises in cases where the police power has affixed a penalty to a certain act or omission to act, or where it requires licenses to be obtained and a certain sum be paid for certain occupations. The power used in the instant case cannot however, be the power of taxation since an attempt to levy a tax upon a Right would be open to constitutional objection. (See “taxing power,” infra.)
Each law relating to the legitimate use of police power must ask three questions: 1. Is there threatened danger? 2. Does a regulation involve a constitutional Right? 3. Is the regulation reasonable?
People vs. Smith, 108 Am. St. Rep. 715; Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., under “Police Power.”
When applying these three questions to the statute in question, some very important issues are clarified.
1. First, “is there a threatened danger” in the individual using his automobile on the public highways, in the ordinary course of life and business? The answer is No!
There is nothing inherently dangerous in the use of an automobile when it is carefully managed. Their guidance, speed, and noise are subject to a quick and easy control, under a competent and considerate manager, it is as harmless on the road as a horse and buggy, possibly more so. It is the manner of managing the automobile and that alone, which threatens the safety of the public. The ability to stop quickly and to respond quickly to guidance would seem to make the automobile one of the least dangerous conveyances. (See Yale Law Journal, December, 1905.)
“The automobile is not inherently dangerous.” Cohens vs. Meadow, 89 SE 876; Blair vs. Broadwater, 93 SE 632 (1917).
To deprive all persons of the Right to use the road in the ordinary course of life and business, because one might in the future, become dangerous, would be a deprivation not only of the Right to travel, but also the Right to due process. (See “Due Process,” infra.)
2. Next, does the regulation involve a constitutional Right?
This question has already been addressed and answered in this brief, and need not be reinforced other than to remind this Court that this Citizen does have the Right to travel upon the public highway by automobile in the ordinary course of life and business. It can therefore be concluded that this regulation does involve a constitutional Right.
3. The third question is the most important in this case. “Is this regulation reasonable?”
The answer is No! It will be shown later in “Regulation,” infra, that this licensing statute is oppressive and could be effectively administered by less oppressive means.
Although the Fourteenth Amendment does not interfere with the proper exercise of the police power in accordance with the general principle that the power must be exercised so as not to invade unreasonably the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, it is established beyond question that every state power, including the police power, is limited by the Fourteenth Amendment (and others) and by the inhibitions there imposed.
Moreover, the ultimate test of the propriety of police power regulations must be found in the Fourteenth Amendment, since it operates to limit the field of the police power to the extent of
preventing the enforcement of statutes in denial of Rights that the Amendment protects. (See Parks vs. State, 64 N.E. 682 (1902)).
“With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540 (1902); Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.y. Co., 24 A. 848 (1892); O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 103 A. 887. “The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.” [emphasis added] Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 U. S. 613 (1935); Buchanan vs. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917).
“It is well settled that the Constitutional Rights protected from invasion by the police power, include Rights safeguarded both by express and implied prohibitions in the Constitutions.” Tighe vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60 (1925).
“As a rule, fundamental limitations of regulations under the police power are found in the spirit of the Constitutions, not in the letter, although they are just as efficient as if expressed in the clearest language.” Mehlos vs. City of Milwaukee, 146 N. W. 882 (1914).
As it applies in the instant case, the language of the Fifth Amendment is clear:
No person shall be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law.
As has been demonstrated the courts at all levels have firmly established an absolute Right to travel. In the instant case, the state, by applying commercial statutes to all entities, natural and artificial persons alike, the legislature has deprived this free and natural person of the Right of Liberty, without cause and without due process of law.
“The essential elements of due process of law are.. Notice and The Opportunity to defend.” Simon vs. Craft, 182 U. S. 427 (1901).
Yet, not one individual has ever been given notice of the loss of his/her Right, before signing the license (contract). Nor was the Citizen given any opportunity to defend against the loss of his/her right to travel by automobile on the highways, in the ordinary course of life and business. This amounts to an arbitrary government deprivation on Liberty.
“There should be no arbitrary deprivation of Life or Liberty...” Barbier vs. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 31 (1885); Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 1l8 U.S. 356 (1886).
“The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a citizen cannot deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the Magna Carta.” Kent vs. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958).
The focal point of this question of police power and due process must balance upon the point of making the public highways a safe place for the public to travel. If a man travels in a manner that creates actual damage, an action in law would be the appropriate remedy (civilly) for recovery of damages. The state could then also proceed against the individual to deprive him of his Right to use the public highways, for cause. This process would fulfill the due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment while at the same time insuring that Rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the state constitutions would be protected for all.
But unless or until harm or damage (a crime) is committed, there is no cause for interference in the private affairs or actions of a Citizen.
One of the most famous and perhaps the most quoted definitions of due process of law is that of Daniel Webster in his Dartmouth College Case, 4 Wheat 518 (1819), in which he declared that due process means “a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial.” (See also State vs. Strasburg, 110 P. 1020 (1910); Dennis vs. Moses, 52 P. 333.)
Somewhat similar is the statement that is a rule as old as the law that “no one shall be personally bound (restricted) until he has had his day in court,” until he has been duly summoned to appear and has been afforded an opportunity to be heard. Judgment without such summons and opportunity lacks all the attributes of a judicial determination; it is judicial usurpation and it is oppressive and can never be upheld where it is unfairly administered. (12 Am. Jur. [1st] Const. Law, Sect. 573, p.269.)
Note: This sounds tike the process used to deprive one of the “privilege” of operating a motor vehicle “for hire.” It should be kept in mind, however, that we are discussing the arbitrary deprivation of the Right to use the road that all citizens have “in common.” The futility of the state’s position can be most easily observed in the 1959 Washington Attorney General's opinion on a similar issue:
“The distinction between the Right of the Citizen to use the public highways for private, rather than commercial purposes is recognized...”
“Under its power to regulate private uses of our highways, our legislature has required that motor vehicle operators be licensed (I.C. 49-307). Undoubtedly, the primary purpose of this requirement is to insure, as far as possible, that all motor vehicle operators will be competent and qualified, thereby reducing the potential hazard or risk of harm, to which other users of the highways might otherwise be subject. But once having complied with this regulatory provision, by obtaining the required license, a motorist enjoys the privilege of traveling freely upon the highways...” Washington A.G.O. 59-60 No. 88, p. 11.
This alarming opinion appears to be saying that every person using an automobile as a matter of right, must give up the Right and convert the Right into a privilege. This is accomplished under the guise of regulation. This statement is indicative of the insensitivity, even the ignorance, of the government to the restrictions placed upon government by and through the several constitutions.
That legal proposition may have been able to stand in 1959; however, as of 1966, in the United States Supreme Court decision in Miranda, clearly demonstrated that even this weak defense of the state’s actions must fail.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436,491 (1966).
Thus the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the Citizen’s Right to travel upon the public roads, by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive his Right and convert that Right into a privilege. Furthermore, we have previously established that this “privilege” has been defined as applying only to those who are “conducting business in the streets” or “operating for- hire vehicles.”
The legislature has attempted, by legislative fiat, to deprive the Citizen of his Right to use the roads in the ordinary course of life and business, without affording the Citizen the safeguard of “due process of law.” This has been accomplished under supposed powers of regulation.
“In addition to the requirement that regulations governing the use of the highways must not be violative of constitutional guarantees, the prime essentials of such regulation are reasonableness, impartiality, and definiteness or certainty.” 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect. 260.
“Moreover, a distinction must he observed between the regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right and one carried on by government sufferance of permission.” Davis vs. Massachusetts, 167 U.S. 43; Pachard vs. Banton, supra.
One can say for certain that these regulations are impartial since they are being applied to all, even though they are clearly beyond the limits of the legislative power. However, we must consider whether such regulations are reasonable and non-violative of constitutional guarantees.
First, let us consider the reasonableness of this statute requiring all persons to be licensed (presuming that we are applying this statute to all persons using the public roads). In determining the reasonableness of the statute we need only ask two questions:
Does the statute accomplish its stated goal? The answer is No!
The attempted explanation for this regulation “to insure the safety of the public by insuring, as much as possible, that all are competent and qualified.”
However, one can keep his license without resetting, from the time he/she is first licensed until the day he/she dies, without regard to the competency of the Person, by merely renewing said license before it expires. It is therefore possible to completely skirt the goal of this attempted regulation, thus proving that this regulation does not accomplish its goal. If an analysis were compiled of all accidents between those individuals having license and those who do not, it would reveal that the highest percentage of accidents were had by those who had licenses. A license does not in and of its self guarantee the safety of the general public. Much like the License to Practice Law or Medicine assure that only competent Lawyers and Doctors ply their trade. A review of the annual Malpractice lawsuits is the only proof necessary to establish that it does not.
Furthermore, by testing and licensing, the state gives the appearance of underwriting the competence of the licensees, and could therefore be held liable for failures, accidents, etc. caused by licensees as the state has certified through the issuance of the license that the individual is competent.
Is the statute reasonable? The answer is No!
This statute cannot be determined to be reasonable since it requires to the Citizen to give up his or her natural Right to travel unrestricted in order to accept the privilege. The purported goal of this statute could be met by much less oppressive regulations, i.e., competency tests and certificates of competency before using an automobile upon the public roads. (This is exactly the situation in the aviation sector.)
But isn't this what we have now?
The answer is No!
The real purpose of this license is much more insidious. When one signs the license, he/she gives up his/her Constitutional Right to travel in order to accept and exercise a privilege under Contract. After signing the license, a quasi-contract, the Citizen has given the state his/her consent to be prosecuted for constructive crimes and quasi-criminal actions where there is no harm done and no damaged property.
These prosecutions take place without affording the Citizen their constitutional Rights and guarantees such a the Right to a trial by jury of twelve persons and the Right to counsel, as well as the normal safeguards such as proof of intent, a corpus dilecti and a grand jury indictment. These unconstitutional prosecutions take place because the Citizen is exercising a privilege and has given his/her “implied consent” to legislative enactments designed to control interstate commerce, a regulated enterprise under the police power of the state.
We must now conclude that the Citizen is forced to give up constitutional guarantees of “Right” in order to exercise his state “privilege” to travel upon the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business.
A Citizen cannot be forced to give up his/her Rights in the name of regulation. “...The only limitations found restricting the right of the state to condition the use of the public highways as a means of vehicular transportation for compensation are (1) that the state must not exact of those it permits to use the highways for hauling for gain that they surrender any of their inherent U.S. Constitutional Rights as a condition precedent to obtaining permission for such use...” [emphasis added] Riley vs. Lawson, 143 So. 619 (1932); Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.
If one cannot be placed in a position of being forced to surrender Rights in order to exercise a privilege, how much more must this maxim of law, then, apply when one is simply exercising (putting into use) a Right?
“To be that statute which would deprive a Citizen of the rights of person or property, without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of the common law, would not be the law of the land.” Hoke vs. Henderson, 15 NC 15.
“We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another.” Simons vs. United States, 390 U.S. 389.
Since the state requires that one give up Rights in order to exercise the privilege of driving, the regulation cannot stand under the police power, due process, or regulation, but must be exposed as a statute which is oppressive and one which has been misapplied to deprive the Citizen of Rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the state constitution.
“Any claim that this statute is a taxing statute would be immediately open to severe Constitutional objections. If it could be said that the state had the power to tax a Right, this would enable the state to destroy Rights guaranteed by the constitution through the use of oppressive taxation. The question herein, is one of the state taxing the Right to travel by the ordinary modes of the day, and whether this is a legislative object of the state taxation. The views advanced herein are neither novel nor supported by authority. The Supreme Court has repeatedly considered the question of taxing power of the states. The Right of the state to impede or embarrass the Constitutional operation of the U.S. Government or the Rights which the Citizen holds under it, has been uniformly denied.” McCulloch vs. Maryland, 17 U. S. (4 Wheat) 316 (1819).
The power to tax is the power to destroy, and if the state is given the power to destroy Rights through taxation, the framers of the Constitution wrote that document in vain.
“...It maybe said that a tax of one dollar for passing through the state cannot sensibly affect any function of government or deprive a Citizen of any valuable Right. But if a state can tax...a passenger of one dollar, it can tax him a thousand dollars.” Crandall vs. Nevada, 75 U. S. (6 Wall) 35, 46, (1867).
“If the Right of passing through a state by a Citizen of the United States is one guaranteed by the Constitution, it must be sacred from state taxation.” Ibid., p.47.
Therefore, the Right of travel must be kept sacred from all forms of state taxation and if this argument is used by the state as a defense of the enforcement of this statute, then this argument also must fail.
As previously demonstrated, the Citizen has the Right to travel and to transport his property upon the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business. However, if one exercises this Right to travel (without first giving up the Right and converting that Right into a privilege) the Citizen is by statute, guilty of a crime. This amounts to converting the exercise of a Constitutional Right into a crime.
Recall the Miller vs. United States and Sherar vs. Cullen quotes from p.5, and, “The state cannot diminish Rights of the people.” Hurtado vs. California, 110 U. S. 516 (1883).
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda, supra.
Indeed, the very purpose for creating the state under the limitations of the constitution was to protect the rights of the people from intrusion, particularly by the forces of government. So we can see that any attempt by the legislature to make the act of using the public highways as a matter of Right into a crime, is void upon its face.
Any person who claims his Right to travel upon the highways, and so exercises that Right, cannot be tried for a crime of doing so. And yet this Sui juris stands before this court today to answer charges for the “crime” of exercising his Right to Liberty.
As we have already shown, the term “drive” can only apply to those who are employed in the business of transportation for hire. It has been shown that freedom includes the Citizen’s Right to use the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business without license or regulation by the police powers of the state.
The United States Constitution at Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 prohibits the granting of a Title of Nobility. “No state shall grant a Title of Nobility.” Since the granting of a title of nobility is
absolutely prohibited this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to enforce a title of nobility and its attendant rules and regulations.
The Utah Supreme Court has stated that the “Ability to drive a motor vehicle on a public roadway is not a fundamental right, but a revocable privilege.” City of Salina v. Wisden, 737 P. 2d 981 - The distinctive appellation, designation or title “driver” is a title of privilege, a title of “Noble Privilege” a “Title of Nobility”.
In the words of Thomas L. Willmore, City Attorney for the City of Tremonton, Utah (case no. 94-0336, Tremonton City Justice Court)
“A Title of Nobility is defined as to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are granted... objection to a Title of Nobility arises from the special privileges that attach to the title rather than to the title itself. Words and Phrases, volume 8A, page 40. A Driver's license is... a privilege which is granted ... by the State (a municipal corporation).”
In other words to obtain a drivers license is to be nominated to an order of persons known as drivers and be granted the special privileges that attach to the title. The United States Constitution at Article 1 Section 10 Prohibits the States from granting a “Title of Nobility” (i.e. a drivers license and its attendant rules and regulations).
Pursuant to City of Salina v. Wisden, the drivers’ license and its rules and regulations are by legal definition a Title of Nobility. Article 1 Section 10 of the United States Constitution prohibits the States from granting “Title of Nobility”. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to enforce upon the defendant “Title of Nobility”. What is prohibited to the States is forbidden to the Court to enforce. California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 908 (1972).
Therefore, the Accused requests the Court to make a legal determination as to what is a title of nobility.
The following case law will define a title of nobility for the court to use to make its determination.
The following quotes give the answer:
“NOBILITY. An order of man, in several countries, to whom special privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people.” l870: Bouvier's Law Dictionary
“To confer a title of nobility, is to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people. It is not necessarily hereditary, and the objection to it arises more from the privileges supposed to be attached, than to the otherwise empty title or order.” HORST vs. MOSES (1872), 48 Ala. 129, 142; 46 Corpus Juris 598, Nobility, note 4; (1874)
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Nobility
“These component... terms ‘privilege’, ‘honor’, and ‘emolument... are collectively in the term 'title of nobility’.” HORST vs. MOSES (1872), 48 Ala. 129, at 142
Government granted: entitlement-privileges, such as a Drivers license and its privileges, are obviously Noble entitlements and franchises as pointed out by Richard B. Stewart, left-wing politician, Rhodes Scholar and Harvard Law Professor:
“The third great innovation in American administrative law, which has largely occurred during the past 20 years, extended the procedural controls and principles of judicial review developed in the context of regulatory decision-making to the operations of the welfare state, including programs of government insurance and assistance, government employment decisions, and the administration of government grants and contracts. Under traditional private law principles, these benefits were “privileges” and not “rights” because their withholding did not constitute the commission of a tort or other natural law wrong against a disappointed applicant or terminated recipient. With the growth of the post-World War II welfare state, the distinction between rights and privileges gradually eroded. Statutes conveying these various benefits and advantages were held by courts to create entitlements...” The Limits of Administrative Law, in the Courts: Separation of Powers, Final Report on the 1983 Chief Justice Earl Warren Conference on Advocacy; page 77 Library of Congress #83-061923.
The Constitution for the united States of America at Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, mandate:
“No State shall ... grant any Title of Nobility”
“The establishment of... the prohibition of... TITLES OF NOBILITY... are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it [the U.S. Constitution] contains.
“Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility. This may truly be denominated the cornerstone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people.” [danger = nobility government, that of the police state] The Federalist Papers: 484: S&6 -Alexander Hamilton
A title of nobility is privilege of license and license of privilege otherwise such title of nobility ceases to exist without such privilege of license and license of privilege. A license to drive is a title of nobility, in that it is a special grant of privilege to use vehicles upon the public highways and roads. So says the Utah Supreme Court cited in Salina v. Wisden, supra.
The State of (Name) (falsely acting as a King) grants “title of nobility” when it takes away a natural existing public or private right, forbidding a natural activity or occupation to all, then turns around and specially grants it back to a few, or many, the special privilege to engage in that activity or occupation and requiring the obtaining of a title of noble privilege (drivers license/license plate) to drive vehicles, and obeying attending nobility rules, as applied to the Accused is contrary to the Constitution for the united States of America mandate at Article I, Section 10, Clause 1:
“No State shall ... grant any Title of Nobility.” Hence, (State Name) Revised Statutes, Title (Number) et. seq., all attendant nobility traffic rules, regulations and penalties, made pursuant to such, is to the contrary of the (res judicata) mandate of the Constitution for the United States of America (lest we be slaves) and is notwithstanding and void, by mere operation of law upon this record, as applied to the Accused. Hence the Count lacks subject matter jurisdiction because of the prohibition of titles of nobility, attendant rules, regulations and penalties.
It is the duty of the court to recognize the substance of things and not the mere form. “The courts are not bound by mere form, nor are they to be misled by mere pretenses. They are at liberty --indeed they are under a solemn duty--to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If, therefore, a statute purported to have been enacted to protect...the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects or is a palpable invasion of Rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution.” Mulger vs. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 661.
“It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.” Boyd vs. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1889).
No higher duty of this court exists than to recognize and stop the “stealthy encroachments”, which have been made upon the Citizen’s Right to travel and to use the roads to transport his property in the “ordinary course of life and business.” (Hadfleld, supra.)
Further, the court must recognize that the Right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a Citizen cannot be deprived without specific cause and without the “due process of law” guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment. (Kent, supra.)
The history of this “invasion” of the Citizen’s Right to use the public highways shows clearly that the legislature simply found a heretofore untapped source of revenue, became greedy and attempted to enforce a statute in an unconstitutional manner upon those free and natural individuals who have a Right to travel upon the highways. This was not attempted in an outright action, but in a slow, meticulous, calculated encroachment upon the Citizen’s Right to travel.
This position most be accepted unless the prosecutor can show his authority for the position that the “use of the road in the ordinary course of life and business” is a privilege.
To rule in any other manner, without clear authority for an adverse ruling, will infringe upon fundamental and basic concepts of constitutional law. This position, that a Right cannot be regulated under any guise, must be accepted without concern for the monetary loss of the state.
“Disobedience or evasion of a Constitutional Mandate cannot be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public.” Slote vs. Examination, 112 ALR 660.
“Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of Constitutional guarantee.” Riley vs. Carter, 79 ALR 1018; 16 Am. Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect. 81.
“Constitutional Rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertions and exercise; vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them.” Watson vs. Memphis, 375 U.S. 526.
Therefore, the Court’s decision in the instant case must be made without the issue of cost to the state being taken into consideration, as that issue is irrelevant. The state cannot lose money that it never had a right to demand from the “Sovereign People.”
Finally, we come to the issue of “public policy.” It could be argued that the “licensing scheme” of all persons is a matter of “public policy.” However, if this argument is used, it too must fail, as:
“No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution.” 16 Am. Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect. 70.
So even “public policy” cannot abrogate this Citizen’s Right to travel and to use the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business. Therefore, it must be concluded that:
“We have repeatedly held that the legislature may regulate the use of the highways for carrying on business for private gain and that such regulation is a valid exercise of the police power.” Northern Pacific R.R. Co.' supra.
“The act in question is a valid regulation, and as such is binding upon all who use the highway for the purpose of private gain.” Ibid.
Any other construction of this statute would render it unconstitutional as applied to this Citizen or any Citizen. The Accused therefore moves this court to Abate this Action or in the alternative to dismiss the charge against him, with prejudice.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 301 and attending state rules, the burden now rests with the
Plaintiff to bring forward evidence in rebuttal of any facts stated herein by the defendant, with law and
great specificity, not merely verbiage and personal convictions and beliefs of the agency’s biased legal
counsel. Defendant believes that he has made a compelling case in support of his petition for
Abatement with sound law and legal theory and requests that if the court rules adverse to that legal
theory, that the Judge, submit a written opinion and conclusion of law, defining errors in the
defendants legal reasoning and theory so that a clear and defined legal obligation of the defendant to
comply with existing state statutes relative to his constitutional Right to travel is understood and
established as a matter of law for the accused and the public at large.

Depends on whether your driving on private or public property

There is nothing to stop anyone from driving on their own property or on property that they have permission to drive on.

The problem with driving on the roads is that the roads are public property so the public (government) has the ability to make the rules for who can use them.

State v. Hackett, 72 Conn. App. 127

"At oral argument, he claimed that (1) he did not violate § 14-215 because a license is not required to operate a motor vehicle on private property without a posted speed limit, ... We conclude that one whose operator's license is under suspension violates § 14-215 whenever he operates a motor vehicle, regardless of whether it is operated on public or private property"

Source: [scroll down for earlier comment in this thread where link is provided]

If you are tired of listening to shills for the state that claim driving is a privilege without any clue of U.S. history who are total hypocrites because they do not actually believe in any constitution which states pursuing happiness is a right and that police power can be used against anyone who does no harm for merely pursuing happiness ... read this scholarly article:


Despite that it has been pointed out there originally were no public roads in America .... do these people who ever claim public roads explain how a state acquired ownership? Do they offer any evidence of a state justly acquiring any road? Take a subdivision developed today ... does the state build the roads or a developer? What was the purpose for any state paving a common right of way? Was it so the American people could take a leisurely drive or improve commerce? These are all the kind of questions people like to ignore who ignorantly claim because roads are public property the state can regulate them.

Nor do these hypocrites acknowledge that police power can be exercised anywhere in a state, public or private, whenever a harm is done. But like I said when it comes to exercising a natural and fundamental right to pursue happiness such hypocrites will come up with all manner of excuses for police power being exercised against you when no harm is done.

Listen to their logic ... it implies if you are eating while on public property the state can regulate what can be eaten. The state can regulate how many breaths per minute one can breath while on public property. If one is using public property the state could decree what is legal or illegal to look at. These people are ignorant of American history, tradition, and ought not be listened to. Freedom to pursue happiness is alien to them.

They would ask you should everyone be allowed to be free? What about mentally retarded people ... should they ought to be free? What about physically handicapped people ... should they ought to be free? Yes freedom is an equal opportunity kind of deal. You are either willing to trust in your fellow man to do no harm while being free so all may enjoy the blessings of liberty or you are no better than a petty thug while trespassing against others because you are afraid of what some might or could do with their freedom.

Tons of case laws protecting our right to TRAVEL

Questions to court:
Are these proceedings governed under admiralty, equity or common law?
Are these traffic infractions criminal or civil actions
If criminal, Breach of contract or damaged party
Is there evidence of complaining/damaged party? Officer is witness. Verified complaint signed under --of perjury


The arguement of right vs. privilage

with regards to driving should be clear. At one time the Government claimed that the roads were funded solely through the fees gathered by drivers, fuel taxes as well as registration fees. Obama's Economic Stimulus bill released billions of dollars from the general fund for transportation projects. I, myself, have overseen projects such as repaving of interstate highways utilizing these funds. The real eye opener, at least to me, was the projects I was involved in upgrading intersections to make them ADA compliant. Would anyone accept the Government charging a fee to license handicapped individuals to enable them to use those improvements and require wheel chairs and their operators to be registered? The money all came from the same source.

There are no politicians or bankers in foxholes.

In today's economy

it's neither.

Rather, it's a necessity.

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

I agree

My wife would have to get up 5 hours early to get to work on time without a car.

Go to the code, read the

Go to the code, read the definitions and see how they apply to you. Your saying "car" "automobile" "vehicle" in order to understand the answers we need to know the definitions of each. My understanding after reading the law. You need a drivers license to operate a commercial vehicle. So if Im in my private property for traveling am I required to be licensed?

Well who am I? If I have a SSN then Im a state employee, as a state employee is my means of travel ever private???

So if I get rid of my ssn and DL then can I be private? This is where it seems no status of private man with rights is recognizable in this corrupt system.

To drive a car is a privilge

Freedom to travel is a right. You can still travel without a car or license.

Driving a car is 'an

Driving a car is 'an opportunity' if you can afford it.

It's a privilege on anyone

It's a privilege on anyone else's property, including what is presently called public property. On one's one property, it is merely an activity.

How do you explain

The right to peaceably assemble?

The way I see it is as a member of the public I am a co-owner in the public property, my portion that I own is that space which I occupy. Since two people cannot physically possibly occupy the same spot, this works. When 2 or more people attempt to occupy the same spot it is no longer peaceably assembling it is now violently assembling. Whether that space is moving 60 MPH down the road is irrelevant. So the action taken on public property, as long as no harm is caused, is merely an activity on my own property.

If you recognize the property

If you recognize the property to be 'public' then you acknowledge the legal arrangement whereby the public makes rules for using public property. So driving around in a dangerous vehicle is regulated on public property. If you don't acknowledge public property, then all property would be private, and you'd only have rights on your own property. On others' property you'd have to follow whatever rules were established for uses.

As for freedom of assembly, driving an automobile has nothing to do with assembling. Next we'd have to pay for your cab to get you to the assembly. Walk if you want to assemble. I'd agree with your right to walk on public property.

The theory that you own that spot you occupy is silly. If everyone owned the spot they occupied on every road, then there wouldn't be enough room for everyone. It's just silly.

Suppose to be a reply to wistfulthinker

I understand your argument that for the safety of the other drivers, it is desirable that fellow drivers occupying neighboring roads show some form of competence in operating a motor vehicle. Motor vehicles are dangerous.

But if it where permission to use public roads it would be called a public road use permit, it is not, it is called a commercial drivers license.

Your argument assumes guilt before any harm has been caused and is in violation to the Constitution for the United States of America, henceforth termed the Constitution. The first amendment of the Constitution states the right to peacefully assemble as being specifically protected. To peacefully assemble means to use public land as long as you do no harm. You have the right to drive down a public road just as much as you have the right to walk down a public sidewalk. When you cause harm you are no longer at peace and are therefor liable for your actions. If we consider your argument, since the State gives me permission to use the State's road if I were involved in a collision wouldn't the State assume all liability unless someone in the collision was not permitted to use the State's road? This is not the case in reality we all assume liability for our actions and thus, with that responsibility, we have the right to exercise it responsibly.

Even if you proclaim the first amendments protections to peacefully assembly does not apply to public roads, the ninth amendment picks up the slack with "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I clearly have the right to peacefully use public property so long as no harm is caused.

You may say well it is a commercial drivers license and since it is for commerce they can regulate it. You would be wrong again. The Commerce clause specifically states its boundaries are limited to foreigners, States, and Indian Tribes. I, as a People of the United States, am not a foreigner, State, or Indian Tribe. So any regulatory functions regarding my commerce is outside the scope of any government agency and strictly prohibited.

Wouldn't the right to conduct commerce in a manner to serve ones own interest be the definition of pursuit of happiness?

To a 16 year old kid asking dad's permission to use the car on

Saturday night - its a privilege. Granted by DAD.

To a citizen of the US who has a car available and wishes to drive it, its a right. Unless you think that ALL acts you are allowed to do such as walking, talking, breathing are privileges granted to you by your totalitarian government that owns you.

In a free society driving, walking and breathing are rights.

Oddly, I was just discussing

Oddly, I was just discussing with a friend this very topic as we both have boys who are old enough to become licensed.

There's no law or licensing requirement that prevents anyone from owning and driving a motorized vehicle. A state license gives permission (or license) to drive on public roads. An important distinction.

Anyone who grew up on some land knows this. The parents would let you practice -- all alone -- in the half-mile driveway, in the field, in the back 40 roads. Many of us learned to drive this way. It was not against the law; it's still not against the law.

Your twelve-year-old can drive. You can even drive drunk. You can drive a truck with no plates. You can be a drunk twelve-year-old driving a truck with no plates and no brakes. These things are not illegal. Once you take any of them onto a public road, they become illegal. (You can see the proof with various states' attempts to deal with this gap in how they try to work out of this boundary when comes to boats and off-road vehicles.)

Nothing comes between a buyer and a car dealership. Some folks, who get financing through a dealership that acts as a go-between with buyer and a bank, will find licensing and proof of insurance requirements. But if you go with cash, you'll see that those bits aren't laws but financing hoops -- loan requirements.

This right vs. privilege dichotomy seems a bit of a red herring. You don't have a right to drive a vehicle. It's not something inherent in being human. Neither is riding a horse a right. If you can amass the resources to buy a horse or a car and gather the skills to do so, you can ride/drive either. It's your right to try, not to succeed. If you want to take that horse/truck on public roads, the public may require that you prove those skills to the rest of the riders and drivers. You've got the right to attempt to acquire the resource and skill necessary and ride/drive on your own property all you want. If you prove up, your community may include you in the privilege to use it's communally-funded roads.

Not either or. But first you exercise your right to try and then you prove to the community, which will be impacted by your abilities, that you are worthy, that you pass, and they give you the privilege of sharing communal roads.

I can't believe how brainwashed people are ...

One has a right to travel ... by ... whatever means of the day.

Do no harm while traveling.

One has a right to eat ... by ... whatever means of the day.

Do no harm while eating.

One has a right to self defend ... by ... whatever means of the day.

Do no harm while self defending.

A driver license has nothing to do with the public roads. A driver license is an occupational license for the activity of driving. The occupation of driving is transporting persons or property for hire. Doesn't matter whether the occupation is conducted on public or private property just like an electrician license is not an occupational license for solely working on public utilities.

A fishing license is no different ... it is an occupational license. Electrician license, plumbers license, or any other license.

You also commit a fallacy by associating a license with permission. It is not so, a topic covered by the Supreme Court. The federal government issued licenses for the sales of alcohol. Some states banned alcohol. Can the federal government give permission to do an activity banned by a state? Obviously the Supreme Court elaborated that a license grants no such permission because it is a tax on the occupation.

A drivers license has EVERYTHING to do with public roads and

nothing to do with an occupation.

Occupational licenses are actually taxes disguised as licenses in order to tax earnings, or to regulate professions.

You could fish on private property without a license except that lakes and ponds and rivers are actually owned by the state - even waters on private lands.

Regarding licenses being permission. If you have a federal license to do something you have federal permission however you may not have state permission. States certainly have the right under certain circumstances to regulate things that the Federal government doesn't regulate. Even if you have permission from the Federal Government.

TAXES are something used to raise revenue and they do not give you rights. You simply have the obligation to pay the tax.

A good example of a tax that must be paid, but does not convey permission is a drug tax or a prostitution tax where either is illegal. In my state as well as others there are marijuana stamps that must be purchased if you are engaging in the sale of marijuana but the sale of marijuana is illegal so of course nobody goes to the court house to buy the stamp.

Still, if you are caught selling marijuana, the fact that you did not buy a marijuana stamp as required by law will be used against you.

The same happens with prostitution.

I try to stay out of this stuff, but I have

to respectfully correct an error on all waters being public. Water on private land is indeed private unless it connects with another property and is "navigable." It goes way back to 1870, 77 U.S. 577, "The Daniel Ball":

An attempt was made in 2002 by the EPA to redefine "navigable" and broaden the scope, but those regulations were invalidated in 2008:

Fish away with impunity.. that little pond is yours:

I AM is all that is. Everything else is malleable.

So ...

"it has everything to do with public roads and nothing to do with an occupation."

I suppose to plainly defeat that I only need to come up with one example of motor vehicle codes being applied on private property. Hmmm .... so many to choose from .... which one to go with .... Oh, I got it ... let's go with handicap parking citations and/or fines for $1000.

"You could fish on private property without a license except that lakes and ponds and rivers are actually owned by the state - even waters on private lands."

How did the state justly acquire lakes, ponds, rivers, or roads? No person owned any rivers when any state was formed. To come along and say a state owns this or that isn't going to cut it. It must be verified by evidence of just acquisition.

RE: "If you have a federal license to do something you have federal permission however you may not have state permission ... A good example of a tax that must be paid, but does not convey permission is a drug tax or a prostitution tax where either is illegal"

A point of the SCOTUS opinions I referred to is that it wouldn't matter if it was called, labeled, named, or referred to as a drug dealer license, prostitution license versus marijuana tax stamps, prostitution tax because it is the substance of power applied or how a rule functions with regards to its objects which determines its character or nature. To say a license grants permission is false.



Rebut that and its voluminous citations.

Very interesting read...

I have only read the first six pages and plan to read the rest later. Thanks!

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win!"

"The belief is worthless if the fear of social and physical punishment overrides the belief."

I don't play straw man games where you state that all you have

to do is come up with a single exception of motor codes being applied on private property to defeat" a rule. And then, son of a gun, you come up with the proof to satisfy YOUR invented single exception. There are ALWAYS quirky exceptions in this sort of law. But you are still absolutely wrong.

Civil rights laws are exceptions of course, but civil rights fines while reflected in motor vehicle codes are STILL not license to park in the handicap zone nor are they taxes, they are MEANT to be punitive in nature in order to secure the rights of someone else.

A license DOES convey permission from the entity of government that you are buying the license from. It does NOT though give you permission that supercedes the authority of OTHER government entities.

Well ...

how many exceptions do I have to come up with of police power being exercised on private property to prove you are full of shit.

Put a number on it and I will provide the court cases. Considering with regards to any statute place always = within the state ... it is not going to be difficult to do.

I do not care if it is a child day care statute. If your activity is deemed to be providing child day care anywhere within a state ...

I do not care if it is a motor vehicle statute. If your activity is deemed to be a violation anywhere within a state ...

It does not matter. Place is always, within the state, which is distinct and separate from an activity.

IN RE: "A license DOES convey permission ..."

The function of law is not to grant permission but make liable. It is a fundamental principle of law. If the law says though shalt not kill it is not an express grant of permission to do anything but kill. It is an express liability for killing.

If licenses did grant permission there would have been an income license for all U.S. citizens a long time ago. There is no income license, only a tax ... because it is a different kind of liability than that imposed by a license with different means of enforcement. For instance, if one owes income taxes ... they are not made liable to cease and desist earning income like they would if there was an income license.

Earlier you commented about marijuana stamps or prostitution taxes making one liable but you keep going off the deep end claiming a license grants some kind of express permission when what a license does is make one expressly liable because the purpose of any law is to create a liability.

You really like to twist things don't you?

Just WHERE did I ever say that the state has no police power on private property?

You make up crazy points and then claim that I made them and then refute them.

You are allowed to drive on your own property without special permission in the form of a license. You cannot drive on public roads without the permission of a license. That's what I said. I never said that police have no authority whatsoever on private property.

I'M going off the deep end? You are talking about licensing the right to make income and kill people. That is about as far off the deep end as it gets.