No confusion pertains. Confusion pertains to those who think that driving on public roads is a god given and/or constitutionally guaranteed human right. It clearly isn't.

Our "right to travel" is in fact a "god given and/or constitutionaly guaranteed right". It was actually recognized by our Founding Fathers as so basic, so intrinsic to human existance that it did not even bear mentioning; it was beyond question. Right up there with the right to eat and breathe. So obviously everyone's "god given right" that it did not even make it into the Bill of Rights, much like, well, eating and breathing.

There have been a number of succesful challenges in the courts to the state's position that driving is a "priveledge" that the state can grant, and therefore take away. Nothing could be further from the truth, and several courts have ruled that way. We, as citizens, have every right to employ the "conveyance of the day" (like our cars) to travel for personal business or pleasure. The only travel on public roadways (public - that means we own them, not the state) that the state actually has the authority to regulate, under the Constitution, is commercial travel.

http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/right2travel.shtml

From the above link:

For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:

CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

Some other links:

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/driver_licensing.htm

Sorry DARISC, but you couldn't be more wrong.

you == 0wn3d

Jeff, thanks for taking the time to post. These fundamental rights should seem obvious but somehow they are not. I am continually amazed at the willingness of some to surrender freedom to the government.

Jeff Man - you are on a roll! Good stuff, keep it coming.

[QUOTE=Jeff Higgins;3484061]Our "right to travel" is in fact a "god given and/or constitutionaly guaranteed right". It was actually recognized by our Founding Fathers as so basic, so intrinsic to human existance that it did not even bear mentioning; it was beyond question. Right up there with the right to eat and breathe. So obviously everyone's "god given right" that it did not even make it into the Bill of Rights, much like, well, eating and breathing.

Didn't mean to confuse you - never said we don't have the right to travel.

There have been a number of succesful challenges in the courts to the state's position that driving is a "priveledge" that the state can grant, and therefore take away. Nothing could be further from the truth, and several courts have ruled that way. We, as citizens, have every right to employ the "conveyance of the day" (like our cars) to travel for personal business or pleasure. The only travel on public roadways (public - that means we own them, not the state) that the state actually has the authority to regulate, under the Constitution, is commercial travel.

Interesting info. No apparent impact. Is there a state where a drivers license is no longer required because of these rulings?

CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

Wouldn't contest that decision at all.

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city (Licensing laws are state, not city - big difference?) may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

But does this decision (with which I also agree) imply that licensing laws intended to insure competent, safe operation of roadworthy vehicles (it's perhaps naive to think that our elected government officialss should care about the general safety of their constituents) are unconstitutional; or even unreasonable?

CASE #3: "The right to travel (We're talking about cars here, right?)is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

Like traffic courts? (lower courts than the ones cited, but courts none the less - why are the rulings of the higher courts cited not being implemented, overiding these lower courts? Now that is puzzling.)

CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.[/i]

Yup.

So what's the bottom line? Drop licensing requirements for driving? Don't prevent anyone from operating a motor vehicle on our roads, regardless of age, skill, sobriety, whatever? Do away with insurance requirements? What's your take on the whole ball of wax?

Sorry DARISC, but you couldn't be more wrong.

Well, maybe, maybe not. I do recognize that I have a number of unresolved thoughts and a growing list of questions. At any rate, it's always enlightening to read input from those who expertly distinguish between black and white and express their well informed views with absolute certainty.

...

There are actually more people fighting this fight than you would suspect, DARISC. Court cases being fought, etc. At the "grassroots" level, there are actually folks driving around with no plates or "right to travel" plates in place of state issued plates. They have no license to drive and quite gleefully allow themselves to be arrested when caught. I'm not aware of one that has lost a court case on their individual right to travel without a license plate on their car or a license in their wallet. These are the activists, the hard-core of this fight, the civil dissobedient. And they are in the right, legally. Have any states rescinded the "legal" requirement that you have their licenses? Of course not. It will take a lot more than a few court cases and a few hardy souls to turn the tide on this. Does that mean that what the states are doing is legal? No.

And yes DARISC, this entire conversation about the right to trave is presented in the context of the the broader discussion in which we are engaged. Vehicular travel. That means in your car, on your bike, or however you damn well choose to travel. If you read the full transcripts of those decisions I listed, it is clear they all have to do with vehicular travel. That is the only means of travel that our gubmint has hoodwinked the ignorant public into believing they have the authority to regulate.

Of course we cannot simply throw out any sort of process to verify that drivers are indeed competent to drive. The potential for death and destuction via our modern "conveyance of the day" is so far beyond what the framers of our Constitution could have ever imagined that we do need some way to ensure the folks surrounding us on our roadways know what they are doing. I frankly do not have an answer.

Back to the original context of this discussion. Should the state have authority to impinge upon an individual's right to travel by means of the conveyance of the day if that individual has done no harm to anyone? For the mere potential to have done harm? I don't think so. I think the states' authority should lie somewhere between the absolute authority they claim and an absolute, unlicensed free for all. Where inbetween? I'm not sure. I'm just sure it is too far the states' way right now.

Passing a driving test in the US is such a joke, I really think the "right" to drive is just a matter of paying the DMV your license fee.

From a purely hypothetical perspective, if there are no reasonable alternatives to and from a certain destination (i.e. private lands and public roads between such with no legal access allowed) wouldn't that be a default denial of right to travel?

..

I know this was for the other Jeff on the thread but... :)

Back on topic, what rights is one surrendering to the government when they follow the law?

Can you operate or see patients after having a few?

Cheers

Well the charge is not "drunk driving" at least not where I live and probably not where you live either! I believe it is Driving Under the Influence. Does not say anything about being drunk. The law makers, right or wrong, have decided that .08 is "influenced" enough for them. They are not saying you are drunk, they are saying you are influenced.......

Oh, and a young women at .14 is probably $hit faced :)

Cheers

Stopping at a sobriety checkpoint, for one. Clearly unconstitutional, but becoming more and more common.

No right to trial by jury after a traffic citation.

Helmet and seatbelt laws for adults.

The demise of the "fully informed jury".

The list could go on forever.

Fare enough, and don't get me wrong because I am by no means judging or trying to form an opinion. I find it interesting how different people think about the same situation! :)

We have many many many "road blocks" (sobriety checkpoints). Never really bothered me, I support them, but then I have been personally impacted by an impaired driver. Could be why we have a different opinion on them. Not saying anyone is right or wrong, just different opinions.

I feel the same about helmet laws and seatbelt laws as you do, for adults. I have no problem with people participating in the natural selection process. :)

The Jury one is another where we agree. But, it is does bother me that evidence collected where someone's rights were not upheld can be inadmissable..... You are either guilty or you are not, it really should not come down to whether or not process was followed, or maybe it should.....

Cheers

Thing about the helmet laws, think about all those excellent organ donors they are missing out on, shame that.

"The State" is to promote the general welfare, are they not? Somewhere in the preamble of The Constitution, but not gonna look it up. Seems to me a "reasonable man" would not want people racing through school zones drunk and driving 100 mph, which is the extreme of the "I have not hurt anyone, why can't I do it?" argument. If you have a reasonable expectation something bad would happen, the state passes a law against it, in theory at least. Sometimes it is more to generate revenue, or try and discourage or encourage actions. Gets to be a pretty slippery slope when you try to define what the elusive reasonable man would think, I grant that. I would also agree that the drunk checkpoints are over the line.(They were stoppin' every car drivin' on that sidewalk and that's profilin' and profilin's wrong.)

The law is the law, you can choose not to follow it, but if you are a member of the society, you must expect some consequences.

Here is another one to think about. My Government, and most of the modern world I believe, think that I should not attempt to control the skies and the folks flying in the sky if I have consumed any alcohol with 8 hours of my duty day. They go further and say that beyond that, no time limit at all, if I am "impaired" from any drug (booze, prescription or otherwise) I can not exercise the priviledge of my ATC liscence......

So, am I surrendering my rights here, or are yours being protected??

Same goes for Joe, you charter a nice business jet and feel the "right" to a safe passage. But what if Joe felt the "right" to exercise his own judgement. (he clearly seems like he would not). But lets say he says "hey, I only had a couple...." and he flies your chartered aircraft. Whose rights are more important?

Is flying different than driving? How so??

What did you think, and be honest, when those America West Pilots got busted for being "under the influence" before they departed with 100 some odd passengers??? Odds are they were not going to hurt anyone........

Just some food for thought. Just throwing it out there cause, like I said, I am interested in how people think and if it is different from my reasoning, I kinda am interested in why! :)

Cheers

The courts here in the U.S. have made a clear distinction between private travel and commercial travel. They have been unanimous and clear concerning the state's prerogative to regulate commercial travel. Pilots, cab drivers, bus drivers, etc. that are transporting others for hire fall into this category. The courts agree they do not share the same unhindered "right to travel" as citizens engaged in their private travels. In other words, those using our public roadways, waterways, and airways commercially are subject to regulation. Private citizens, according to these court decisions, are not.

Seems like "right to travel" does not necessarily equal "right to operate an automobile."

Phewww! That's the simple point I've painfully been trying to make, not to contest our right to travel (can't ride your bicycle on the freeway - damned controlling gocernment!).

It very much does, in fact, mean the right to operate an automobile. Or to operate just about damn near anything you like to get youself from point A to point B using public roadways. Go back and re-read those court decisions. Do a quick web search. You'll be surprised at how much information is available on this. When, where, and (most importantly regarding this discussion) how you choose to travel is simply none of the gubmint's business.

You are evidently still confused. The simple truth pertaining to our right to travel is that we can choose whatever conveyance suits us, and travel by that means whenever and wherever we choose. We do not need to ask permission of our gubmint authorities, or seek their approval, to do so. Licensing any mode of transportation used for purely personal travel, and licensing citizens to operate any given mode of transportation for purely their own personal use, is unconstitutional. Several courts have ruled as much already.