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. 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." 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. 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." -Thompson vs. Smith, supra.;
Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784
"… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a
fundamental constitutional right" -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979)
“citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city
absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.” Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009
“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. . .” Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963).
“The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a
mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the
federal and state constitutions.” Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966).
“A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public
highways with other vehicles in common use.” Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41.
“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. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236.
"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. App. 3rd 667 (1971)
“The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer
an open question. 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.” House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So.
233, 237, 62 Fla. 166.
“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.
The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles. Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666.
“The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in
common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads
superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.” Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468.
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; Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 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. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456
"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
Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions:
"(6) Motor vehicle. - 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.
"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
NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232
"Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than
according to the means by which they are propelled" - Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20
"The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages
were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that
automobiles should not be similarly disposed of." Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907).
"...a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon..."
State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 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. (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.
"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. 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. 22.
"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).
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 3
"The word 'operator' shall not include any person who solely transports his own property
and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation." Statutes at Large California Chapter
412 p.83
"Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable
and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen." Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur
3d p.27
“RIGHT -- A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the
constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it
acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961.
“Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have
right to do as such license would be meaningless.” City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910.
“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. A. 2d 639.
“The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.” Payne v.
Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273.
“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. 3d 213
(1972).
“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).
"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." Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US
540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O'Neil vs. Providence
Amusement Co., 108 A. 887.
"The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it
appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution." (Paul v. Virginia).
"[T]he right to travel freely from State to State ... is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as
governmental action. 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).
EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. ...'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.' Williams v. Fears,
179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186.
“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. Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41
Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14.
“The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally,
is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187.
“a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled,
and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel
“Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”
Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15.
“Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be
by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole
condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.” Swift v City of Topeka, 43
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 4
Kansas 671, 674.
The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is
not a "statute."
A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.
Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185.
Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses
and carriages. 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. 26, 28-29.
…automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v.
Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354. Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591.
A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle,
as any other citizen. Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42.
Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E.
677, 197 Mass. 241, 246; Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St.
Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158.
"A soldier's personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’ U.S. v
Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235" 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition
(West) pocket part 94. "[I]t is a jury question whether ... an automobile ... is
a motor vehicle[.]" United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir.
1983).
Other right to use an automobile cases:
- EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160
- TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78
- WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274
- CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44
- THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492
- U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966)
- GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971)
- CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6
- SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)
- CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978)
Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence.
Some citations may be paraphrased.
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. 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." 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. 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." -Thompson vs. Smith, supra.;
Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784
"… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a
fundamental constitutional right" -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979)
“citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city
absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.” Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009
“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. . .” Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963).
“The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a
mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the
federal and state constitutions.” Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966).
“A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public
highways with other vehicles in common use.” Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41.
“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. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236.
"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. App. 3rd 667 (1971)
“The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer
an open question. 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.” House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So.
233, 237, 62 Fla. 166.
“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.
The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles. Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666.
“The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in
common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads
superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.” Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468.
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; Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 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. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456
"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
Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions:
"(6) Motor vehicle. - 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.
"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
NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232
"Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than
according to the means by which they are propelled" - Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20
"The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages
were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that
automobiles should not be similarly disposed of." Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907).
"...a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon..."
State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 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. (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.
"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. 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. 22.
"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).
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 3
"The word 'operator' shall not include any person who solely transports his own property
and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation." Statutes at Large California Chapter
412 p.83
"Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable
and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen." Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur
3d p.27
“RIGHT -- A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the
constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it
acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961.
“Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have
right to do as such license would be meaningless.” City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910.
“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. A. 2d 639.
“The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.” Payne v.
Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273.
“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. 3d 213
(1972).
“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).
"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." Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US
540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O'Neil vs. Providence
Amusement Co., 108 A. 887.
"The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it
appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution." (Paul v. Virginia).
"[T]he right to travel freely from State to State ... is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as
governmental action. 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).
EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. ...'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.' Williams v. Fears,
179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186.
“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. Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41
Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14.
“The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally,
is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187.
“a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled,
and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel
“Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”
Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15.
“Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be
by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole
condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.” Swift v City of Topeka, 43
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 4
Kansas 671, 674.
The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is
not a "statute."
A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.
Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185.
Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses
and carriages. 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. 26, 28-29.
…automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v.
Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354. Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591.
A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle,
as any other citizen. Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42.
Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E.
677, 197 Mass. 241, 246; Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St.
Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158.
"A soldier's personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’ U.S. v
Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235" 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition
(West) pocket part 94. "[I]t is a jury question whether ... an automobile ... is
a motor vehicle[.]" United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir.
1983).
Other right to use an automobile cases:
- EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160
- TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78
- WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274
- CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44
- THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492
- U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966)
- GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971)
- CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6
- SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)
- CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978)
Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence.
Some citations may be paraphrased.
26 comments:
But What Law Enforcement will Comply with this US Supreme Court Decision?
Just like Terry Holcomb had the Lawful Right to carry a firearm, yet the State Troopers Ignored the Actual Laws and were Planning Ahead of Time to Arrest him as he is a Supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and that is NOT Allowed as We The People are THEIR SLAVES!!!
There is an old man in Dallas Texas that does not have Liscense plates , inspection sticker , Or a drivers License. He has beat their tickets so many times and sued them and won so many times that they leave him alone. If he can do it then you can too.
What everyone is saying is correct...but I don't see anything being said on how we can cause the change to all these violation of OUR Law. Waking up is hard to do when your lazy...there is good NEWS FOR ALL WHO WILL TAKE THE TIME AND LEARN THAT "THE COMMON LAW GRAND JURY" IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND...IT IS THE FOURTH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT AND ITS AUTHORITY IMMENATES FROM THE "BILL OF RIGHT"....IT IS YOUR CHOICE TO LEARN AND LIVE FREE..OR TO REMAIN LAZY AND DIE AS THE DEDT SLAVE YOU ARE NOW..LEARN AND LIVE FREE BY "WE THE PEOPLE" APPLYING THE "COMMON LAW GRAND JURY" DO IT. NOW!!!!!!
The key to unlock the cage we all find ourselves in at this time is the judiciary. This branch of government was created, in part, to protect the people from the ambitions and excesses of the other branches of government. Nearly all important issues are ultimately determined in a courtroom. Citizens no longer have direct access to grand juries and find that their complaints are first filtered through the political office of the district attorney. Litigants are routinely denied standing or due process in the courts to frustrate those who seek justice from the state.
In Marbury v. Madison the supreme court ruled that an unconstitutional statute is void "ab initio" or from it's inception. It reasonably follows that one of the first issues before any court should be the constitutionality of the law involved. Judges swear an oath to support and defend the constitution, within which is found your right to due process of law. Why is it that a denial of due process, the very definition of a void judgement, never renders any judgement void or results in prosecution of the judge for perjury of his oath?
Judges are the gatekeepers of society. We depend upon them for redress and remedy. They have failed. In order to obtain remedy we must take back our courts by holding judges accountable.
"Jail For Judges" is a concept which creates an external review board to hear complaints of judges actions and negligence and to sanction judges up to and including imprisonment. When judges must choose between according due process to litigants and going to jail for failure to do so, that is when people will receive due process and not a minute before. When "Jail For Judges" becomes law in any single jurisdiction, i.e. any state of the union, a person need only move to that state long enough to establish residency in order to qualify to petition the court for vacation of a facially void judgement, which is the court record of a case which demonstrates a denial of due process.
People must qualify ballot initiatives to institute "Jail For Judges" and re-institute direct access for the public to grand juries to facilitate indictments against govt. actors who commit crimes. In this way the system may be used to purify itself and to return our country to a constitutionally restrained republic.
These so called judges and district attorneys do not be us on the law - they beat us on process and procedure. Another great cite is:
"Dividing, as does St. 1913, p. 639, drivers of automobiles into two classes, one professional chaufeurs, and requiring them to obtain a license, and pay an annual license fee of $2, the other embracing all others, who are not required to secure a license or pay a license fee, is sound classification, and not arbitary, so as to constitute special legislation." Ex Parte Stork 167 Ca. 294, 139 P. 684.
Note: In essence the states also the if you are not in commerce (commercial) (for profit, compensation, or for hire) you cannot be regulated.
You sound very passionate about gunrights, Dan. No need to worry, because the U.S. Constitution guarantees your right to bear arms, & no one, not President Obama, Democrats, or Republicans, want to take this right away from you; even if they did, the SCOTUS would never allow it.
Try this exercise: imagine if most humans were suddenly gone & only a few of us remained. We'd need to establish at least some laws to allow society to exist & function, without which war lords would again rise as they did in midieval times. A most basic law might be "not to cause harm to another human being.' Okay. but what happens if someone walks through a public park with a loaded firearm where several children are playing; would that cause us to become frightened? Does an American's right to carry a firearm trump our right to not be afraid? Then we'd need to quantify certain public behaviors so that we all feel safe.
Terry Holcomb was not arrested because he supports the 2nd Ammedment, but because he was carrying a loaded AR-15 through a crowded Walmart. This is totally nonsense. Forget about the scared mothers & other folks at Walmart; why on earth does anyone need an AR-15 & how does wanting it off the streets jeopardize our rights under the 2nd Ammendment?
There's a woman in Canada who carry's a letter from the Minister of Transportation guaranteeing her right as an individual domiciled in Canada to travel the roads without a driver's license and without vehicle insurance.
Corporation can dictate to their employees/agents that to protect the Corporations' liability they must during working hours and while operating a vehicle owned by the Corporation do so only if they have insurance and a driver's license.
The Corporation of Canada cannot force the common man or woman who is not an employee/agent to do the same except through deception of propaganda/lies.
Interestingly enough though, the Canadian Postal Corporation insures no vehicles and pays any liability incurred from their tax payer generated revenues if necessary.
"free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.' Williams v. Fears", Does this mean we should be able to travel over bridges which are part of the highways without having to pay a bridge troll I mean toll?? ARRRR.......
I do not own an AR-15, nor am I a gun fanatic, but I do feel we the People should have the right to own whatever the military has, to ensure our freedoms.
I really think people should get a grip on what this means by "bear arms". This is a misnomer and by design and intentional from those who make the laws. Your so called 'right' to bear 'arms' is nothing more than the right to use the "LAST" name and nothing more. Doing so is enmity against the creator.
This is the arms, and the coat of arms is nothing more than a belligerent man who separates himself from the creator. You have that right sure... so go 'right' ahead and wave your natural inalienable rights to fight, draw a sword or gun against another.
No man can give you a right to do anything illegal. Anything you have a license for, is PERSONAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT that what you are doing is illegal. Why would anyone think that another man can give you a right that you your self don't already have?
The right to a militia is NOT you, your neighbors and their friends standing against other men/women in a battle. The militia is the national guard, and reserve which is state controlled entities prepared to bury the dead. The dead are those who rise up and fight. Your allegiance to "a flag" is prima facia evidence that you abandoned your natural birthright and allegiance to God (YHWH)...and entered into a commercial 'dead' entity that YOU gave a last name to. YOU resurrected a dead thing and gave it power.
Does the law not say: "for the weapons of our warfare are not 'carnal' but mighty through God (YHWH) to the pulling down of strong holds, and everything that exalts 'itself' against the knowledge of God (YHWH)..."?
Why do you think "TREASON" is the reason they give to execute the population during martial law?
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out...
You may also notice NO POSTAL carrier 'vehicle' has a tag either... That's so they can go on 'private' and public roads...
Not many people really know anything about that. BUT yea... THAT'S the truth about the system here. NO ONE is forced to vote or register to vote... Doing so is nothing more than standing against his neighbor for a buck to put him/her in jail using THEIR laws.
Something like this...
attorneys scribe "color of law", then hand that colorful flag to another who THINKS they know something about law... and says NOW YOU have to use it against your neighbor. (Judas all over again, and they get paid to do it) <funny as hell)
when in fact they never did have to do anything at all.. except say "We refuse to use YOUR law against my neighbor, this law of yours is not our law".
The programming they use on the tell-a-visions (prophets) make people think they are better than others when reality is they are all equal under the law, but those who "swear an oath to another" waved their natural God given rights.
yea sad but true
It is not possible to enter the republic (heaven) if one is subject to his/her representatives. ergo "no taxation without representatives".. and they can tax 100% of their subjects income "at will" to pay their debt incurred to handle your estate. One must abandon ALL of his preconceived motives, ideas, and personal pride to enter the realm of this republic. THIS IS NOT a democracy! The US citizens brought the democracy here. They should go back to their 10 square mile land mass located in the District of Columbia where they are domiciled.
The biggest problem of all, is the US citizen. Not them. Contrary to popular belief, they do what 'we' allow them to do here on home turf by permission, until (of course) the US citizens rise up (insurrection) and think they can do as they want to the republic. That's when their debt obligations will be called and foreclosed on. And the ONLY way to pay THAT debt is with blood of the US citizens.
It's called and treason .
US citizens are property of the US government (dead entities) created by congress by the 14th amendment.
Instead of studying... they want bear, dope, and ball games to pre-occupy their minds. ROFL
Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579, also said the following:
- "The exercise of such a common right [right to travel on public highways] the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare";
- "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"
Thompson v. Smith ruled that you could not arbitrarily revoke a driver's licence, as had happened in the case of Mr Thompson. It did NOT rule that a driver's licence was a violation of Mr Thompson's constitutional rights nor did Mr Thompson claim that it was. See http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=3467100988685921366&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr&sa=X&ei=GpzNU8u6N-f7igLBIw&ved=0CB0QgAMoADAA
Please feel free to translate this or any of my posts. All I ask is that you include a link back to the original post here. wel im launching automobile website i have something special 4 u
500k
The dead are those who rise up and fight. Your allegiance to "a flag" is prima facia evidence that you abandoned your natural birthright and allegiance to God (YHWH)...and entered into a commercial 'dead' entity that YOU gave a last name to. YOU resurrected a dead thing and gave it power.
Did the apostle Paul break allegiance to God and become dead when he used his rights as a roman citizen? I'll let you search for it because apparently, you need to read the Bible some more.
do you wear a fez....... loosen it
The whole article is bullsht. The SCOTUS never said you don't a driver's license.
To answer unikomjoe question "Does an American's right to carry a firearm trump our right to not be afraid?" Yes unikomjoe, the right to bear arms does in fact trump as you say "our right to not be afraid" because you do not have a "right" to not be afraid - that is not one of your rights. You need to learn what a "right" is because you have certain unalienable rights - one of which is the right to bear arms. When you learn what your "unalienable rights" are then maybe you will not make the mistake of thinking you have a right to a certain feeling - not feeling afraid.
You may also want to learn the difference between the following:
The difference between a gun and a firearm.
The difference between a car and a motor vehicle
The difference between tax payer and a non-taxpayer
The difference between a "person" and a "man or women".
Wake Up My Friends
You are WRONG the founding fathers themselves said the militia is EVERY person in the country, the national guard is NOT the militia. Nice try go back yobed the adults are talking
All men between the ages of 17 to 45 are automatically militia
we the people are the law over states and government I don't consent to contract with pirates sorry the man.
we the people are the law over states and government I don't consent to contract with pirates sorry the man.
we the people are the law over states and government I don't consent to contract with pirates sorry the man.
If a policeman tows my automobile can I getting rust for the tow
Its theft...
Post a Comment