It seems what you are really saying is you do not agree with the laws but they are actually laws. -Thompson vs. Smith, supra. at page 187. Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. to make money or profit) then you don't need a license to travel within the United States, also if that is the case, then you would need a driver's license and insurance to even purchase a vehicle. The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts. People v. Horton 14 Cal. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. For the trapper keepers y'all walk around with, you sure don't interpret words very well. Period. The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions. 2d 639. ARTHUR GREGORY LANGE, PETITIONER . It is the LAW. FindLaw.com Free, trusted legal information for consumers and legal professionals, SuperLawyers.com Directory of U.S. attorneys with the exclusive Super Lawyers rating, Abogado.com The #1 Spanish-language legal website for consumers, LawInfo.com Nationwide attorney directory and legal consumer resources. U.S. Supreme Court says No License NecessaryTo Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely, U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary, To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets, No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely, YHVH.name 1 1 U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS, "The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 9Sz|arnj+pz8" lL;o.pq;Q6Q bBoF{hq* @a/ ' E Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases. Id., at 197. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances., Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. Under this constitutional guaranty 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 anothers rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct., Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 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. In respect to license and insurance I have to actually agree it should be required. This was a Rhode Island Supreme Court decision, and while quoted correctly, it is missing context. A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle. Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. Not without a valid driver's license. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. If you drive without a license and insurance and you cause an accident on public roads, you are LIABLE and can be sued and put in jail. No, that's not true: This is a made-up story that gets re-posted and shared every couple years. Kent v. Dulles, the 5th amendment, the 10th amendment, and due process. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. This is our country and if we all stood together instead of always being against one another then we could actually make positive changes but from the comments here I don't see that happening soon. If a "LAW" defines "Person" along with a corporation, that "Person" is a fiction and NOT a real, flesh and blood human. 3rd 667 (1971). Snopes cited the fuller context of the ruling, which said: The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions. Salvadoran. The email address cannot be subscribed. The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it. Just remember people. The language is as clear as one could expect. Contact us. I would also look up the definition of "Traffic". The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. The fact-checking site Snopes knocked the alleged ruling down, back in 2015, shortly after it began circulating. Under this constitutional guaranty 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." Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. Licensed privileges are NOT rights. Demonstrators rally near the Supreme Court and the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. on June 24, 2021 in support of H.R. If you have an opinion on a particular article, please comment by clicking the title of the article and scrolling to the box at the bottom on that page. 26, 28-29. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of. " 21-846 argued date: November 1, 2022 decided date: February 22, 2023 No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. You will see a big picture as to how they have twisted the laws to do this to us. Because in most states YOU would've paid out that $2 million and counting. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. (1st) Highways Sect.163 the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all. , Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty. People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. Let us know!. Your arguing and trying to stir more conspiracies and that's the problem. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.. Indeed. House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. California v. Texas. Question the premise! Is it true. If you truly believe this then you obviously have never learned what a scholarly source is. The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it. After doing a search for several days I came across the most stable advise one could give. The U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling has made these traffic stops now even more accessible for law enforcement. Learn more about Mailchimp's privacy practices here. It's time to stop being so naive and blind and wake up and start making changes that make sense. He specialized in covering complex major issues, such as health insurance, the opioid epidemic and Big Pharma. You will also find that all the authors are deeply concerned about the future of America. - Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty. People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases. Id., at 197. The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle., Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. Both have the right to use the easement. Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. http://www.paulstramer.net/2010/03/red-amendment-how-your-freedom-was.html, http://www.paulstramer.net/2012/05/emergency-communications-what-you.html, http://www.paulstramer.net/2012/10/bombshell-rod-class-gets-fourth.html, http://www.paulstramer.net/2012/11/what-is-really-law-and-what-is-not-law.html, http://www.paulstramer.net/2010/03/montana-freemen-speak-out-from-inside.html, http://www.paulstramer.net/2009/10/from-gary-marbut-mssa-to-mssamtssa.html, Posted byPaul Stramerat9:58 AM2 comments:Email This, Labels:commercial courts,contract law,drivers license,Right to travel,us corporation. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 - CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982; Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 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., Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. Truth is truth and conspiracy theories and purposeful spreading of misinformation is shameful on all of you. You don't think they've covered that? Snopes cited the fuller context of the ruling, which said: Some people interpret this right as meaning that they do not need a driver's license to operate a vehicle on public roadways, but do state and federal laws agree with that interpretation? Stop stirring trouble. -American Mutual Liability Ins. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. Check out Bovier's law dictionary. ], U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex. While many quote Thompson V Smith,(1930) regarding travel it also says, A driver's license is only legally required when doing commerce. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday against warrantless searches by police and seizures in the home in a case brought by a man whose guns officers confiscated after a domestic dispute . Every day, law enforcement officials patrol Amer-ica's streets to protect ordinary citizens from fleeing The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation. Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. Go to 1215.org. Some citations may be paraphrased. Elated gun rights advocates say the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen has opened the door to overturning many other state gun restrictions. Both have the right to use the easement.. If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void. , Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. . Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. The Supreme Court on Monday erased a federal appeals court decision holding that former President Donald Trump violated the Constitution by blocking his critics on Twitter. If you have the right to travel, you should be able to travel freely on public roads, right? The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS. . I said what I said. (archived here). ], United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. The decision could mean thousands of Uber drivers are entitled to minimum wage and holiday pay . Talk to a lawyer and come back to reality. | Last updated November 08, 2019. keys to navigate, use enter to select, Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. What they write is their own opinion, just as what I write is my own. ., Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). Firms, Sample Letter re Trial Date for Traffic Citation. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts. Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. Kim LaCapria is a former writer for Snopes. - The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways", 10) The term "used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle. Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159; 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456, "The word automobile connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways." No recent Supreme Court ruling has in any way challenged the legality of a requirement for driver's licenses. 241, 28 L.Ed. Most people do not have the financial ability and even if they did wouldn't alot money to you because you were hurt. For example, you have a right tofree speech, but that does not mean you can yell Fire!" I have been studying and Practicing both Criminal and Civil law for 25 years now. . 1907). ----- -----ARGUMENT I. Answer (1 of 4): I went to Supreme Court of the United States and searched for the topic of 'drivers license,' and receive this result: Supreme Court of the United States So, it does appear some people have sued over losing their State drivers' license, and taken their case all the way to the U.. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. Unless you have physically called the Justices of the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, and asked each and everyone of them if the Headline Posted on Paul LeBreton site is Correct, then you have no right to tell people that it's not true. I have my family have been driving vehicles on public Highways and Street without a Driver's license or license plate for 50 plus years now, Everyone in my family has been pulled over and yes cited for not having these things, but they have all had these Citations thrown out because the fact that the U.S. Constitution Clearly Statement that and Long as you are not using your vehicle for commerce (e.i. 35, AT 43-44 THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 U.S. 3d 213 (1972). Notice it says "private automobile" can be regulated, not restricted to commerce. WASHINGTON The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that police officers may stop vehicles registered to people whose driver's licenses had been suspended on the assumption that the driver was the. 662, 666. So if you refuse to read the 10th AMENDMENT to see that in our Bill of Rights that it says anything not specifically laid out in the constitution is up to the states to decide. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. The. ..'Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.' The thinking goes, If the Supreme Court says it's a right to use the highway, the state can't require me to get a license and then grant me permission to drive, because it's already my right . ments on each side. The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets. 887. I'm lucky Michigan has no fault and so are your! Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions:", (6) Motor vehicle. I have from time to time removed some commentsfrom the comments section,that were vicious personal attacks against an author, rather than an intelligent discussion of the issues,but veryrarely. Contact a qualified traffic ticket attorney to help you get the best result possible. So, let us start with your first citation: Berberine v Lassiter: False citation, missing context. Created byFindLaw's team of legal writers and editors When anyone is behind the wheel of a vehicle capable of causing life-changing injury and/or death it is the right of the state to protect everyone else from being hurt or killed and them have no financial responsibility or even if they are able to be sued never pay. Select Accept to consent or Reject to decline non-essential cookies for this use. Will it be only when they are forced to do so? The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that it is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment for a police officer to make an investigative traffic stop after running the license plate of a vehicle and learning that the owner's driver's license has been revoked, even if the officer is unsure that the owner is driving the vehicle. KM] & Anything that is PUBLIC doesn't have that "right". The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police cannot always enter a home without a warrant when pursuing someone for a minor crime. Name You "mah raights" crowd are full of conspiracy theories. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. Just because there is a "law" in tact does not mean it's right. Hendrick v. Maryland235 US 610 (1915) 942 0 obj <> endobj Gun safety advocates, however, emphasize that the court's ruling was limited in scope and still allows states to regulate types of firearms, where people . Miller vs. Reed, in the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. 35, AT 43-44 - THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 - U.S. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles. Bottom line - REAL, flesh and blood humans have a right to travel WITHOUT permission or a license. 22. The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle. Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. David Mikkelson founded the site now known as snopes.com back in 1994. 2023 We Are Change | Website by Dave Cahill. That case deals with a Police Chief trying to have someone's license suspended. We are here to arrive at the truth about what has been done to our country, and true history, not as we see it, but as our Creator sees it. And this is not meant for the author of this article in particular. If they were, they were broken the first time government couldnt keep up their end of it. In fact, during the 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 events combined, Clerks of Court held more than 200 events and helped more than 35,000 . It has NOTHING to do with your crazy Sovereign Citizen BS. He wants you to go to jail. A lot of laws were made so that the rich become more rich and disguise it by saying " it's for the safety of the people" so simple minded people agree with that and blindly assume that is the truth or real reason for a law. Because the consequences for operating a vehicle poorly or without adequate training could harm others, it is in everyone's best interest to make sure the people with whom you share the road know what they are doing. Supreme Court Most Recent Decisions BITTNER v. UNITED STATES No. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances." Let us know!. All rights reserved. The answer is me is not driving. The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. Wake up! Traffic infractions are not a crime. People v. Battle Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right., Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. Why do you feel the inclination to lie to people? Hasn't there been enough proof throughout many many years that they could care less about us and more than not play on our trust for them use it in their favor just to get what they want. We have all been fooled. A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent. Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. If you want to verify that the supreme court has made a ruling about something, go to supremecourt.gov and search for it. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all. (U.S. Supreme Court, Shapiro v. Thompson). 465, 468. If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void. - Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969).