|
Driver Licensing vs. Right to Travel
65 ways to lose your license in Massachusetts I find that I use my driver's license more to buy alcohol than to prove I am a registered driver. In fact, I did not know that there was a use for a driver's license other than to buy alcohol.
MGL-90-6: Display of license plates MGL 41-98d: Massachusetts officers must present their ID when requested. Problems or violations of the law not having anything to do with the operation of a motor vehicle should not result in the loss or suspension of a driver's license,"
Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing
that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads,
and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways
may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people
submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken
from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment."
Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion - to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee 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." After all, the right to travel between states is guaranteed by Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. And while taking away a person's driver's license does not take away that right, it can make it essentially impossible to exercise. Is the right to travel equals the right to operate a motor vehicle?
"The right to travel on the public highways is a constitutional right."
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.
No statutory duty lies to apply for, or to possess a driver license for
personal travel and transportation as defendant is not within the class
of persons for whose benefit or protection the statute was enacted."
"The right to travel is part of the 'liberty' of which a citizen cannot
be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment."
Operation of a motor vehicle upon public streets and highways is not
a mere privilege but is a right or liberty protected by the guarantees of
Federal and State constitutions.
To further reinforce the rights vs. privilege argument, there is also this case which ruled that a "right" cannot be converted to a "privilege":
No State may convert a Right into a Privilege and require a License or Fee
for the exercise of the Right.
The SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, and it's rulings supercede all laws that any state may pass. The Supreme Court has ruled that we have the right to free travel "upon public highways" using the "ordinary and usual conveyances of the day", and specifically uses the word "automobile" in that ruling. Furthermore:
If a State does erroneously require a License or Fee for exercise of that
Right, the Citizen may Ignore the License and or Fee and exercise the Right
with Total Impunity.
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this
exercise of constitutional rights."
The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into
a crime.
Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, at 113. Shuttlewort v. City of Birmingham, Alabama
It is settled that the streets of a city belong to the people of a
state and the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen
of the state.
Escobedo v. State Dept of Motor Vehicles Conway v. Pasadena Human Society Sovereign Right To Operate a Private Vehicle
Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is
one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its
inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not
derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not
be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election.
It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the
Right to private property ... and is regarded as inalienable."
This concept is further amplified by the definition of personal liberty: Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee 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." We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." 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."
"The right to travel on the public highways is a constitutional right."
U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No statutory duty lies to apply for, or to possess a driver license for personal travel and transportation as defendant is not within the class of persons for whose benefit or protection the statute was enacted."
"The right to travel is part of the 'liberty' of which a citizen cannot
be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment."
Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.
Operation of a motor vehicle upon public streets and highways is not
a mere privilege but is a right or liberty protected by the guarantees of
Federal and State constitutions.
To top it off, from the Supreme Court:
The right of a 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 his 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 purposes of life
and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving
a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or
transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a
city may permit or prohibit at will.
To further reinforce the rights vs. privilege argument, there is also this case which ruled that a "right" cannot be converted to a "privilege":
No State may convert a Right into a Privilege and require a License or Fee
for the exercise of the Right.
The SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, and it's rulings supercede all laws that any state may pass. The Supreme Court has ruled that we have the right to free travel "upon public highways" using the "ordinary and usual conveyances of the day", and specifically uses the word "automobile" in that ruling. Furthermore:
"If a State does erroneously require a License or Fee for exercise of that
Right, the Citizen may Ignore the License and or Fee and exercise the Right
with Total Impunity.
U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980);
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821), was a United States Supreme Court
decision most noted for the Court's assertion of its power to review
state supreme court decisions in criminal law matters when the defendant
claims that their Constitutional rights have been violated.
|
Send comments to:
hjw2001@gmail.com
|