The right of locomotion?

[taekwondave]

A little-known right in our country has been referred to in Supreme Court cases as the right of locomotion. As a right, you can not be required by any law to register your vehicle with the state in which you reside or obtain a driver license in order to travel on public roads and highways (with the exception of truckers, cab drivers, bus drivers, limo drivers, etc). Few people know about this.

Here are a few Supreme Court rulings that deal with it:

-- "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.

-- "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

-- "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the fifth amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125

-- "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489

Sound strange to you? It sounded strange to me too. But that's how the game works. Keep enough people ignorant about the truth for long enough, a generation or two goes by, and everybody accepts the status quo without question.

Can the state require NOBODY to get a drivers license?

Well, as it turns out, they can force SOME people, Constitutionally, to get one. The difference lies in whether you are a "driver" or a "traveler." As it turns out, most of us aren't "drivers" at all.

"Driver -- One EMPLOYED in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940

"Traveler -- One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business, or health." Locket v. State, 47 Ala.; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p 3309

The difference apparently lies in what you are using the roads for.

Here's some more Supreme Court cases that deal with this concept:

-- "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 . . . operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." Teche Lines v Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784; Thompson v. Smith, supra.

-- "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, (but) 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 v. Rinford, 287 US 251; Pachard v Banton, 264 US 140, and cases cited; Frost and F. Trucking Co. v. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592; Railroad Commission v. inter-City Forwarding Co., 47 SW.2d 290; Parlett Cooperative v. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313.

Interesting stuff.

I talked to a police officer about this. His response? "Local law trumps all." I thought these case rulings refuted that nicely.

-- "The state cannot diminish the rights of the people." Hertado v. California, 110 US 516

-- "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489

I hope that cop doesn't take that attitude too often. He could put himself in real danger of Federal prosecution for doing so.

-Deprivation of rights § 701

(1) A person commits a crime if he or she willfully, whether or not acting under the color of law, deprives another of, or injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates another in the free exercise or enjoyment of, or because of his or her having so exercised any right, privilege, or immunity secured to him by the…Constitution or laws of the United States of America... (2) A person convicted under this section shall be imprisoned for not more than ten years. (3) A person who deprives another of any right or privilege protected under this section shall be civilly liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, without regard to whether a criminal case has been brought or conviction obtained. In an action brought under this section, the court may award costs and reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party. (FSMC, TITLE 11. CRIMES. Look it up at http://www.fsmlaw.org/fsm/code/title11/T11_Ch07.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

Anyway, I was bored

[SpiffCoug]

Wait, so everyone isn't doing the Locomotion?

[SpiffCoug]

I'm confused as to what you're trying to say. You don't need to provide proof of vehicle registration to obtain a driver's license. Registering your vehicle and getting a driver's license are two different and separate things.

Are you saying we don't need to do one or the other? I don't see how asking people to maintain the cars at a minimum level to ensure they're in good working order before they go on the road is unconstitutional or asking that people have a basic understanding of the traffic laws before driving on the road where they can potential kill themselves or others is unconstitutional.

[hawkwing]

This falls under the 'no soap box issues' rule for the Lounge, so it's being locked.