U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets
U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets
by Jeffrey Phillips, published on We are Change, on Jul 21, 2024
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.
Tell me, is it always your practice to send people out who share your view armed only with b.s.?
I went through the first group of cases. None of them are U.S. Supreme Court decisions. To your credit, you actually provide the means to look up the cases and demonstrate that you’re a liar. Either that, or you haven’t read any of the cases yourself.
Had you done that, you would find out these are a) state level cases, and b) even though they are state level cases, they directly DISPROVE the point you’re trying to make.
I can only conclude that you are actively attempting to mislead the people who share your suspicions about the scope of governmental authority, and send them out armed with arguments that are flat-out guaranteed to make them lose.
I don’t like people who lie to and manipulate other people. Or who waste my time.
I put this together for a friend of mine who’s time (and mine) you wasted with this garbage:
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.” –
This is not a U.S. Supreme Court case. It’s from an opinion issued by the Virginia State Supreme Court in 1930 regarding a Virginia state statute. Further it omits the text immediately following:
“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.”
“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.”
In other words, the court’s opinion specifically rejects the “spin” you put on it. Although, frankly, simply misrepresenting this as a U.S. Supreme Court decision at all would be enough to get you thrown out of court.
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. . .”
See above – citations of Thompson’s language can only be used to argue for what the opinion in the case actually says, and it doesn’t say what you say it does.
Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872.
That’s a Rhode Island Supreme Court decision, not a U.S. Supreme Court decision. It’s actually focused on whether a license to drive can be dependent on an individual’s ability to cover any damages from his or her activities as a driver. At the time, Rhode Island didn’t require insurance, but a deposit with the state to cover possible damages. The RI Supreme Court upheld that requirement, and said this:
“Where the purpose of an act is to protect the public using the highways from financial hardship resulting from the operation *873 of motor vehicles by persons financially irresponsible, it is referable to the police power of the state. This power is inherent in sovereignty and permits the enactment of laws, within constitutional limits, to promote the general welfare of the citizens. Hadden v. Aitken, 156 Neb. 215, 55 N.W.2d 620, 35 A.L.R.2d 1003; Rosenblum v. Griffin, 89 N.H. 314, 197 A. 701, 115 A.L.R. 1367.
“It is clear that the purpose of the instant statute is to promote the welfare of the public by minimizing the hardship flowing from the financial irresponsibility of users of the highways who are involved in accidents, and to accomplish that the state may, in the valid exercise of the police power, prescribe uniform regulations concerning the establishment of financial responsibility as a condition precedent to the lawful operation of motor vehicles upon its highways. It is our opinion that the financial responsibility act is not violative of the due process clause of either the federal or state constitution.”
Emphasis added by me. The opinion upheld the police power of the state in imposing requirements on the right to drive consistent with public safety and due process – which the act passed. Not only does this case not prove your point, it actually disproves it. Again.
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.”
Again, this is not a U.S. Supreme Court case. It’s from the Arizona State Supreme Court and, like Berberian, concerns the imposition of a requirement to cover financial damanges. In Arizona’s case, this did involve a requirement to purchase insurance. They followed the RI Supreme Court’s reasoning in Berberian – all of it.
“We consider applicable the following statement by the Rhode Island Court in Berberian v. Lussier, supra:
“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 of which the citizen may not be deprived without due process of law.” 139 A.2d at 872.
They then agree with the holding in Berberian, and find that the requirement to purchase insurance doesn’t violate due process. So, again, you’re citing a case that defeats you.
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.”
Again, that’s not what the case says. This is an Idaho State Supreme Court case, also dealing with the requirement to purchase liability insurance as a condition of getting a driver’s license. The Court follows the exact same reasoning as the Berberian and Schechter courts, finds that the requirement is within the police power of the state, and does not violate due process. So, you just shot yourself in the foot. Again.
IF you had done your diligent homework, you’d have realized that only people “Driving” for hire are required to have a license, such as a taxi driver, a bus driver or a person driving for a business to transport goods. The people, who do not “Drive for hire” are not required to have a license. You have twisted the cases to try an prove your point, when in all reality, you’ve made yourself look like a fool. Try reading “Black’s Law Dictionary”. Lookup the word “Driver”. Words in common use are not the same as in Legal use, so a “Driver” means one employed to do business for a company or for hire. All others are not required to have a license. Businesses have a responsibility to make sure their goods and services are traveling down our highways and roads safely with the businesses products or with the safety of the passengers in which they were hired to carry. So is everyone required to have a license to drive? NO!!! Are people who “Drive” for businesses required to have a license? YES!!! I think you need to study the law, just a bit more and realize how wrong you are. It is clear, if you take the time to actually read the entire law and then use a Legal Dictionary to define what a “Driver” truly is. Many words used are legal terms and have completely different meanings when dealing with Law. Go study them and I would hope you wouldn’t leave your ignorant comment up there, since it makes you look very bad and ignorant.
I’m no lawyer, no technical words here. All I can say is, whew’ What a relief! ChrisDC, thank you for taking the time to clear this up .
Find out what inalienable rights are.
Max…you are right! Forget the others.. they work with the corporations. We became an employee of the Corporation of Canada and the United States when our mothers signed our birth certificates through deceit.
It’s a ‘bill of lading’ because the courts only recognize Admiralty Law.
The judge is the banker.. and he’s all about ‘collecting’ for the corporation. The Lawyers also work for the Corporation which is why you, as a regular human being will hardly ‘ever’ win in court on your own.
You will NEVER ever get a banker to sit in the courtroom.. thus you can’t ever ask him if he loaned you ‘money’ and lawyer can’t answer that question because he’s not the banker. I know.. I’ve been there.
The courts don’t recognize Common Law! It’s against their Corporation Law! LOL
http://9-11themotherofallblackoperations.blogspot.ca/2011/06/in-1913-colonel-edward-mandell-house.html
“Very soon, every American will be required to register their biological property (that’s you and your children) in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a charge back for our fiat paper currency.
Every American will be forced to register or suffer being able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattels (property) and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading (Birth Certificate) to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, secured by their pledges.
They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debts to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges.
This will inevitably reap us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud, which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and we will employ the high office (presidency) of our dummy corporation (USA) to foment this plot against America.”
Also.. don’t forget.. the USA has TWO Constitutions…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVsMUpPgdT0
Talking to lawyers and unawake people can be frustrating. You would think after all these years and corruption they’d wake up to their history. They probably still believe that box cutters took down planes.
Peace n Safety
The LAWFUL PATH…
NOT THE LEGAL CORPORATION ‘LIES’
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml
The supreme court ruled on these cars in appeals.so fully look into the case and read the whole case before looking dumb
How stupid are you.. try reading before you insert your foot in your mouth.
You did a very good job Chris DC, of standing up for the Private for profit Government Services CORPORATION, named.. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.. that has slyly USURPED your real DE JURE Government, yet no one hardly noticed, this is how your real Governments name is spelt.. united States of America.. all CORPORATIONS names are all written in Capital letters, not much difference, so it was hardly noticed. Corporations operate in Commerce under UCC or UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, they can only make laws for their employees, no different to WAL MART.
A Corporation has no sovereignty and have no rights to make statute laws for other human beings other than their employees. Now America, Canada, Australia and most other Western Countries are Common Law Countries, yet when we go into the PRIVATE Corporations Courts we are under Maritime/Admiralty law the law of the sea.
To Chris DC, continuing my answer, Now that we have established America was founded on Common law and the
Corporation can’t make laws for those other than their employees. Under Common Law the only requirement is that we DO NO HARM to other human beings or property, THAT’S IT, so under Common Law you can drive without a license.
When we operate under Commerce or their STATUTE LAWS they need our CONSENT, and as soon as we even answer to our CAPITAL LETTER NAME we have contracted with them, that is Consent, so is saying nothing, consent by
AQUIESENCE. Your drivers license is a Contract and you were never told. Contracts are supposed to be full disclosure so again they are not lawful, they use FORCE AND INTIMIDATION to get you to obey them.
read about your Strawman name GOOGLE, your strawman.
I have question for all those of you supporting the CORPORATION that has removed your god given rights.
When the American Government was first formed was it formed as a PRIVATE for PROFIT CORPORATION ?
If not then I suggest that you have all been DUPED
“Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint” (Alexander Hamilton). Government and its statutes are a very necessary component of the social contract of which in advanced cultures everyone is a part, unless you would prefer to live in a world of unsupported chaos, lacking in public amenities, infrastructure, defence, social security, healthcare and education. You, Noel, must be one of the last surviving disciples of the IUV phenomenon, whose tryst with the conspiracy theorist community was short-lived and which could not even have occurred without the internet. Now it is gone like so many half-baked notions of universal wealth and anti-government sentiment, washed away like tears in rain. There are still a few adherents of the related strawman concept to be found, and that reminds me: in many parts of the world it is traditional to burn the strawman in the pagan-inspired Easter bonfires. Let us hope that this notion, too, comes to its natural demise.
The above post is absolutely correct. There is no right to drive period. Since the right to drive or not to drive is not within the 18 specific duties specified in the Constitution, it is up to the individual States to decide how to implement personal transportation.
You don’t understand the concept of inalienable rights, it seems, nor the subversion of those rights by “permits and licenses.” Wonder why our nations founders never required everyone who rode a horse to get a govt license to do so buy a plate to stick on their horses backside.
It is a simple fact, Licenses are not required to drive unless one is operating a business.
It is also a fact that having a license does not prove one actually knows how to drive.
It only states the individual passed a minimum set of requirements and does not in any way indicate the individual knows or even remembers those multiple guess questions they chose correctly 5 minutes after taking the “test”.
We are traveling not driving.driving is what taxi workers and limo operators do.or semi drivers.They are paid to transport goods.we have the fundamental right to travel in automobile without license our plates unencumbered period
We were taught in Driver’s Education that “Driving is a Privilege, not a Right” Each State has the Police Powers to set forth the requirements to operate a vehicle upon their “Right of Ways” I feel the original statements will put many in legal jeopardy as the Courts have upheld for decades now the right of the state under Police Powers to make requirements for operation of vehicles upon its “Right of Ways”.
That’s because DRIVERS ED is a part of the Corporations framework. It’s about control, money and business!
It’s your RIGHT to travel.
It’s all about jurisdiction!
and people wonder how the “powers that be” could turn a God Created Flat Earth into a Spinning Globe worshiping the sun we travel around. its like a frog in a pot on a stove, just slowly turn up the heat and he will never know he is being cooked. WAKE UP AMERICA we live in a petri dish.