right to travel on public roads

• Chapter List
• Testimonials
• Join Luke Unfiltered
• Enter Luke Unfiltered
• Members Area
• Live Call-In Show
• Luke Unfiltered Forum
• Members Only Store
• Apocalypse Survival Training
• Travel & Escape Hacking
• Change Media University
• Member Support
• Edit Your Profile

Select Page

U.S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Roads

Posted by Jeffrey Phillips | Jul 21, 2015 |

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.

This article first appeared on SomeNextLevelShit.com and was authored by Jeffrey Phillips.

Sign up on lukeunfiltered.com or to check out our store on thebestpoliticalshirts.com .

About The Author

Jeffrey Phillips

Join we are change.

• Facebook 572.5k Followers
• X 466k Followers
• YouTube 870k Followers
• Instagrm 130k Followers

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Do You Need a Driver's License to Legally Operate a Car on Public Roads?

Despite what you may read on social media, you still need a driver's license to legally drive a car, and the u.s. supreme court hasn't ruled otherwise., kim lacapria, david mikkelson, published july 24, 2015.

About this rating

For years now, impressive-looking texts and documents have been circulated online under titles such as "U.S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary to Drive Automobile on Public Highways/Streets," implying that some recent judicial decision has struck down the requirement that motorists possess state-issued driver's licenses in order to legally operate vehicles on public roads.

One example of this claim opens with an out-of-context quote before launching into a potpourri of case excerpts from the Supreme Court and lower courts:

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highway 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."

However, a full reading of the referenced case, Thompson v. Smith , 155 Va. 367 — Va: Supreme Court 1930 (available via Google Scholar ) presents that inaugural quote in an entirely different context:

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. 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 held that although the use of public roads is a right which citizens enjoy, local authorities may nonetheless regulate such use (including imposing a requirement that motor vehicle operators obtain licenses) so long as such regulations are reasonable, not arbitrary, and apply equally to everyone.

Another bit of context elided from the example article is the fact that in when the referenced decision was handed down by the Supreme Court of Virginia in 1930 , several of the 48 states did not yet require motorists to possess driver's licenses to operate motor vehicles on public roads. Moreover, fewer than one in five Americans owned a car in the 1930s (a demographic that saw little upswing until after the end of World War II). Therefore, regulatory issues stemming from broader vehicle ownership and more modern vehicle operating conditions were still decades in the future at the time the ruling was issued.

No recent Supreme Court ruling has in any way challenged the legality of a requirement for driver's licenses. Driver's licenses are issued state by state (with varying requirements), not at the federal level or according to federal requirements. And driving without a license is indeed illegal in all 50 states.

By Kim LaCapria

Kim LaCapria is a former writer for Snopes.

By David Mikkelson

David Mikkelson founded the site now known as snopes.com back in 1994.

Article Tags

Fourteenth Amendment , Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The doctrine of the “right to travel” actually encompasses three separate rights, of which two have been notable for the uncertainty of their textual support. The first is the right of a citizen to move freely between states, a right venerable for its longevity, but still lacking a clear doctrinal basis. 1 Footnote Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999) . “For the purposes of this case, we need not identify the source of [the right to travel] in the text of the Constitution. The right of ‘free ingress and regress to and from’ neighboring states which was expressly mentioned in the text of the Articles of Confederation, may simply have been ‘conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created.’” Id. at 501 (citations omitted). The second, expressly addressed by the first sentence of Article IV, provides a citizen of one state who is temporarily visiting another state the “Privileges and Immunities” of a citizen of the latter state. 2 Footnote Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 168 (1869) ( “without some provision . . . removing from citizens of each State the disabilities of alienage in other States, and giving them equality of privilege with citizens of those States, the Republic would have constituted little more than a league of States; it would not have constituted the Union which now exists.” ). The third is the right of a new arrival to a state, who establishes citizenship in that state, to enjoy the same rights and benefits as other state citizens. This right is most often invoked in challenges to durational residency requirements, which require that persons reside in a state for a specified period before taking advantage of the benefits of that state’s citizenship.

Traveling versus driving – no license needed (video proof)

Note: The THREE videos are lower down the page. My comments are first, followed by the video, then points by other people much smarter than me. Don’t miss the links to other pages with great content about traveling (not driving)! 

Table of Contents

My Comments

It is worth researching if the driver’s license is only for people being paid to trans-port or traffic goods or people.

They trick us with definitions! They teach us one definition in their schools, but quietly use another in their courts.

Here are the real definitions:

• Driver = Paid for commerce – truck driver
• Traffic = Move goods – drug trafficking for example
• Transport = Trans – port – between ports
• Passenger = Paying customer
• Operating = a professional activity

The old and common definition for the word ‘ driver ‘ was someone who drove a wealthy man/woman around all day. Like so many subtle deceptions , we have been taught that a man/woman operating a car is always a driver, whereas the truth may be that the man/woman is a traveler using a car.

Now it’s gets trickier because the car transforms into a ‘vehicle’ if it was possibly purchased with Federal Reserve Bank notes or if the car is being used by a ‘driver’. There’s more to learn. But the basic premise is that no entity, in the states united, can forbid someone from traveling in a car.

The word ‘traffic’ is in a ‘ traffic stop ‘. Traffic means to move goods, as in a drug trafficking . If someone in a costume pulls thou over and claims thou made a traffic violation, thou might want to ask him/her to prove it. They are pretending thou is engaged in commerce and unless thou refutes it, thou will be liable for the rules around trafficking. Don’t stand under / under stand their point. Don’t agree that thou is trafficking.

And thou is not moving between ports! as in trans – ports.

• Don’t register the car – see below
• Get the car’s M SO – Manufacture Statement of Origin – see below.
• Either don’t carry the driver’s license or return it to the DMV (many people do the latter). The DL implies one is working. But one is not required to work 24/7!
• May need to be a State national , of one of the 50 American states. Resident (agents) and resident (aliens) may be required to have the driver’s license since they do not have an un-a-lien-able right to travel.
• Know the language of what is going on ; shown above, in the videos, and all over this page. The policé/policy officers are trained to get thee to admit to “driving.” It’s truly a mind-bender for new people. If thou is not getting paid, thou is not driving! Thou is traveling.
• Watch the videos below .

Don’t give them the title! Don’t register the car!

Registering is also a nefarious setup. Regis means the king, as in the Regis Hotel. Don’t register anything! Don’t register to vote either. Don’t register thy car, then they won’t have jurisdiction over the car and can’t pull thee over.

People register their cars, and put a plate on the car confirming the car technically belongs to the state administration. Then the state policé/policy officers pull thee over to tell thee how to use it.

Since resident likely means someone working for the administration, that’s another piece of the deception. Thou walked into the DMV, then gave them title, then ‘registered’ the car, and lastly said thou is a resident, meaning an agent or alien.

Thou now has implied thou is working for the administration, hence now driving, which is business. Or thou said thou is not a state national, but instead is a resident alien, and aliens do not have the right to travel. They may in fact need a license.

In a nutshell, get the real title, not the “certificate of title”. Second, don’t give title to the state. Don’t accept the resident status . Don’t register the car. But LEARN HOW TO RESPOND TO THE POLICY OFFICERS BY WATCHING THE VIDEOS.

Manufacture Statement of Origin / Certificate of Origin

To truly own thy car, thou needs the manufacturer statement of origin or certificate of origin. Whomever has this, is the rightful owner. If thou buys a car within Indiana and needs to ship it to Greece, then Border Customs of USA will request the MSO or MCO .

Most people don’t have the MSO or MCO because the rigged system has the dealer send the MSO or MCO to the DMV. Absurd! The DMV ‘splits the title’ by letting thee possess the car while they own it. Thou receives a certificate of title, not the true title.

Meaning part of this process of asserting one’s right to travel (not drive) is to get the MSO or MCO. With new cars, this is possible but not easy. With cars already registered with DMV, then it’s more difficult, but essential.

I have called new dealers to inquire. Some know about the MSO; many do not. For example, CarMax will provide the MSO with advance notice.

Read more in my other essay:  Don’t give them the title! Don’t register the car! Don’t believe thou is a resident (alien or agent)

Jaro’s Comments

Here are details from someone named Jaro:

Driver’s license is for  DRIVING , which is a  COMMERCIAL activity . And the use of a car purchased with lawful money, which is NOT for profit, is  NOT commercial  activity, and thusly  does NOT require any license .

The difference between a car bought with  CREDIT  from Federal Reserve (FRNs), and a car bought with  REAL, lawful money  (gold and silver coins), is that  the car bought with FRNs is BY DEFAULT in commerce and so justly regulated by the State . While a car bought with  REAL, lawful money  (gold and silver coins), is  in no way in commerce , and  is truly PRIVATE property protected by Public (common) Law , and so  NOT subject to State regulation on public roads .

You just gotta use  counter-claim in Equity  in court to assert that,  or otherwise avoid admitting that you’re the statutory person/defendant .

Download all three videos!

Right-click the links OR hold down the Control (Ctrl) key on keyboard when clicking  mouse button

• traveling active arrest warrant MP4 – right-click the link or CTRL-click
• right to travel verified by a good cop – right-click the link or CTRL-click
• my first interaction with police using clc (common law court) card – right-click the link or CTRL-click

Three Videos

Here’s a video about traveling. Note the officer asks for things, but does not demand them. The officer is required to ask, but no one is obliged to provide.

See my write-up of the video below:  Video: Man traveling in car (w/o plate) threatens gunfight and policé officers withdraw

Notes for 2nd Video:

“Pulled over for the third time in 8+ months and still traveling freely and this time VERIFIED the right to travel as i am WELL WITHIN THEM(my rights) to do what i’m doing. This video takes place after i have already handed him my paperwork and he has handed it back stating, “Hold tight for a minute,” and has returned to his patrol car already. As you can clearly see this isn’t some setup, i just had barely picked up my wife off of work and in fact, this officer followed me across Main Street while on Vine Street and didn’t pull me over when i pulled to the side to pick up my wife, he went on and turned down 100 West going North. We decided to go get gas first off so we turned down 100 West to goto Chevron that was down on 500 North. Low and behold he was sitting off to the side flipped around already waiting for me to continue down Vine Street, instead he flipped around behind us as soon as we passed him. No traffic violations ever happened at any point and he finally initiated the stop at the end of the street, actually in front of one my friends places. But he got what information he needed and honored his oath letting me continue to travel. He did use his emergency lights on me, but I don’t expect all cops/people/anyone to understand this as it is not the norm and we are not taught that we have an option. Travel safely my friends.” – Brian Schaff

Living in the Private

Brief Traffic Stop “Is this a criminal investigation ?”

If the answer is “No” you have established that the officer is not serving as a “ Peace Officer ” investigating, with “articulable probable cause”, an alleged crime against a potential or actual living injured party.

You can now say: “I wish to leave. Am I free to go?”

If the answer is “No” you have established that the officer is attempting a “detention/seizure/arrest”, without “articulable probable cause”. If the “detention/seizure/arrest” continues, you can calmly repeat: “I wish to leave. Am I free to go?” ( source )

What do they ask for?

When they pull over someone traveling in a car, they ask for:

• Driver’s License – to prove one is a resident (alien)
• Registration – to prove STATE OF KANSAS owns the car

They do this to confirm thou is subject to their jurisdiction. They assume everyone is a subject. Must rebut the presumption.

Thou can’t drive without a license.

Thou can’t   operate  a  motor vehicle  without a license.

But thou can get in a car, turn the key, navigate it down the road without a  driver’s license. 

Why? Because the third point above is not ‘driving’. What is ‘driving’? Getting paid to move cargo or passengers. Getting paid to ‘traffic’ goods. That’s why they call it traffic! It’s all commerce to them. Don’t fall for it! Snap out of it. It’s a word game.

They start with the schools where they intentionally teach the wrong meaning of words. Yes, it’s that organized. They set up the schools. Set up the incorrect definitions of words. They are a formidable foe.

But remember the checklist above. It’s about language and the driver’s license and the MCO for the car.

For teenagers!

Teenagers would be helped the most by learning this knowledge. They can use a car really at any age acceptable under common law / common sense.

Native Born Citizen Points

Read this invaluable PDF .

The short answers from the Nevada Revised Statutes are …

DRIVER’S LICENSE

YES, a license is required IF YOU OPERATE a vehicle that is making a “use of the highways … in a gainful occupation thereon”.

So, Reader, are YOU out there making money by your use of the public highways? THEN you need a license as a “driver” for that use, but not any other use . If you are NOT making money, then you don’t need a license.***

REGISTRATION

YES, registration is required IF YOU OWN a vehicle that is making a “use of the highways by vehicles in a gainful occupation thereon”.

So, are you the OWNER of a vehicle that is out there making money by its use of the public highways? THEN that vehicle must be registered, for that use, but not any other use. If you are NOT making money, then your vehicle is not required to be registered.***

In fact, the NRS include this EXEMPTION, quote: “the provisions of [the statutes] do not apply to: … Any person engages in transporting the person’s own personal effects in the person’s own vehicle.”

*** Keep in mind that you or your vehicle could be involved in “gainful occupation” in one hour, but not in the next hour (or all the rest of your life).

OH! But there IS one class of person that CAN be required to get driver’s licenses and CAN be required to register their vehicles, purely because of their political status and without regard to “use”. They are called “ residents ”.

We will talk about the two topics, “gainful purpose” and “residents”

See the rest here

FamGuardian Points

Here is related knowledge from FamGuardian.org :

“A state Citizen has the right to travel on the public easements (public roads) without being registered. A statutory “U.S. citizen” does not. It is a privilege for a foreigner to travel in any of the several states.  If you are a statutory U.S. citizen, you are a foreigner in a constitutional state. The state legislators can require foreigners and people involved in commerce (chauffeurs, freight haulers) to be licensed, insured, and to have their vehicles registered. When you register your car, you turn over power of attorney to the state. At that point, it becomes a motor vehicle. If it is not registered then it is not a motor vehicle and there are no motor vehicle statutes to break. There are common law rules of the road. If you don’t cause an injury to anybody then you cannot be tried.

If your car is registered, the state effectively owns your car.  The state supplies a sticker to put on your license plate every time you re-register the motor vehicle. Look closely at the sticker on your plate right now. You may be surprised to see that it says “OFFICIAL USE ONLY”.(Note: In some states, they do not use stickers on the plate) You may have seen municipal vehicles that have signs on them saying “OFFICIAL USE ONLY” on them but why does yours? You do not own your car. You may have a Certificate of Title but you probably do not have the certificate of origin. You are leasing the state’s vehicle by paying the yearly registration fee. Because you are using their equipment, they can make rules up on how it can be used. If you break a rule, such as driving without a seatbelt, you have broken the contract and an administrative procedure will make you pay the penalty. A state Citizen must be able to explain to the police officers why they are not required to have the usual paperwork that most people have. They should carry copies of affidavits and other paperwork in their car. The state Citizen should also be prepared to go to traffic court and explain it to the judge.”

Be careful. This man got himself killed.

Sad report from Utah of a man likely traveling without DMV plates and without a driver’s license. Local policé/policy officers pulled him from car, saw a gun, and shot him. The man should have operated under protest and duress and obeyed people threatening his life. He could have sued them for false imprisonment later.

Read more here:  Traveler without license resists arrest. Policé officers kill him.

George and the Invisible Contracts

George Mercier offers his view on invisible contracts, on the license, and using ‘the king’s’ highway:

“Yes, an unknown and invisible Highway Contract was actually in effect when I was driving around without a License in effect; a contract was in effect that my legal Patriot mentors had specifically and adamantly told me did not exist (since I was not using the Highways for a Commercial purpose and my Driver’s License did not exist). But the Patriot advisors were point-blank wrong, and the contract did exist, as I will explain later; and the contract was invisible.” Read more in Invisible Contracts ( long book , all online, and see the license part towards the end )

Living Man vs CORPORATE ID-ENTITY

It comes down to this:

• Living man: free to travel, in a car, without license
• Corporate fiction: What thou thinks is thy name, is actually the name of a corporation (or trust) that they created when you were born, and you mistakenly use this as your (ID) entity–as your business name. A business needs a license to engage in commerce.

Thou was born. The corporate fiction JANE SMITH was birthed. Thou is using the corporate fiction as thy playing piece in the world of commerce and this gets thou into a world of trouble and pain.

When they pull you over and ask for thy name, the correct answer is: “My given name is Jane. My family name is Smith.” Never ever connect them, because that is the name they gave to the corporate fiction.

This is why the microprint on checks reads “Authorized Signature” because you are authorized to sign for this JANE SMITH corporation.

So the living woman can travel, if the woman states that she is living and existing as a woman and NOT AS A PERSON/CORPORATION.

Corporations need licenses to do anything.

A living man or woman has the freedom to engage in business without restraint.

As for speeding tickets

This is an excerpt from this

July 2022 update! Here’s another video

Video of a man traveling in his conveyance yet stopped by the policy officers. He held his ground and emphasized the following:

• He was not driving . He was traveling .
• Drivers are taxi drivers and bus drivers.
• He is not a mister /master of a boat . He is just called by his name.
• He had a common law paper to show who he is. [not sure this was needed]
• He held his ground even though they  offered to arrest his body/boat. They offered many times and he did not back down!

Walking vs Acting; Driving vs Traveling; Is thou getting paid!

If someone is walking, they are walking. If someone is paid to walk, they are likely acting.

if someone is using a car, they are traveling . If someone is paid to drive someone or something around, they are driving . Driving is an occupation. A processional task.

If a policy officer pulls someone over, the first question is may I see a driver’s license. The answer is me is not driving. Question the premise!

If thou is getting paid, thou is driving. If thou is working for uber, thou is driving. If thou is just driving to the store and back, thou is traveling in a car or using a car.

If thou is cleaning the bathtub, thou is cleaning the bathtub. If thou is getting paid to clean the bathtub, then is a maid. If thou is using a car, thou is a man or woman using a car. If thou is getting paid to use the car, thou is a driver.

Just imagine if a policy/police office-r knocked on your door and said you need a license to clean your bathtub. Because the officer is assuming thy is running a business without a license. Wouldn’t that be odd! Well it’s just as odd to accuse thou of driving if it’s pretty evident thou is not moving people or things for hire!

Driving is Commerce

Excerpt from the brilliant site, Living in the Private.

There is no law or statute that requires a private motor-powered conveyance to be registered , nor any law or statute that requires a private man or woman to possess a driver license or insurance. However, if you “ register ” a motor-powered conveyance it becomes a “ vehicle ”, subject to all the commercial traffic codes , rules and regulations (and penalties). You become a commercial transport operator, involved in the transportation of goods or passengers for hire, compensation, or profit. This is because a de jure public state has the delegated power of the private people to create, by legalisation, fictional entities for the purpose of commerce, and therefore the state has a right and duty to regulate its corporate franchises when they are used on the public highways for commercial gain. In short, the state controls its creations. “Legalisation” (entry by contract into commerce) occurs primarily through “registration”, “licensing”, “certification”, “securitization”, and “general deposit”. Read more at Living in the Private

They do the same thing with the word ‘person’ and the port-pass

This topic made me realize that as the word ‘driver’ means to be acting in commerce – specifically trafficing, the word person implies acting in commerce as well .

When stopped outside of one’s car, the policies officers will ask for ID-entity to know if thou is acting as a person .

I will soon write about how the port-pass (passport) is yet another method them turning a normal activity into commerce . When using the port-pass (passport), thou is stating thou is moving from port to port and trans-porting something. It’s been said that we are all self-carrying luggage.

• The biggest con in history (about driver’s licenses) PDF
• Traffic means movement of goods, as in the movie Traffic, about drug trafficking
• Traveling, not driving, for state Citizens
• The Convenient Omission: An article about definition of passenger
• Richard McDonald’s Seminar on state Citizenship
• The State Owns and Controls Thy (Your) Car
• Freedom From Government – Get book or private plate for conveyance
• Living in the Private: Driving is Commerce

Related Posts:

• Download the three car traveling videos without license
• Review of statutes/codes relating to Virginia…
• Video: Not driving! But singer pulled from car…
• Video - Man uses car without driver's license.…
• Video: Man traveling in car (w/o plate) threatens…
• Cops let go man with no license and in car lacking…

34 comments on “ Traveling versus driving – no license needed (video proof) ”

Could you please show any laws and/or court cases which substantiate these claims? Are there any court cases where such people have been taken to court and prevailed? This sounds like the same old SovCit (or whatever you want to call it this year) claims which have failed for decades. Did this person file suit and win? From everything I see is a SovCit or wannabee who just wears down the cops who are attempting to avoid a confrontation. At no point does the officer concede that anything the guy says is correct. I have been searching for over a decade to find the first court case where these claims are recognized as valid and prevail. Could you please provide me with any you are aware of? Thank you

Not only are what these people saying about our right to travel freely and unencumbered from the State factual and true just simply read the Constitution., here is one of many success stories including myself. I recently had a case on a driving on suspended license dropped to a driving without a license I consider it a win for sure. https://youtu.be/vfUJLHKKzjg

I don’t think they (the government/powers that be/courts) want anything set in stone in official court record. So no, you probably won’t find any real case laws regarding winning or suing regarding this specific matter. Though there are actual case laws defining certain terms, status’’ etc. Often times things of this sort are dismissed and not recorded because once it is, it’s free game for anyone to use in the court of law as a defense to their case. They do not want anyone to know or use this information or admit that it is valid because they will loose their slaves.

This, of course, is absolutely not true. No one wins based on these arguments presented. They get this lunacy from “Black’s Law” and the Articles of Confederation (which lost all legal power the day the Constitution was passed). Just flat out silly to even listen to this nonsense.

Does simply go look at the definitions Under the UCC code the code that all Enforcement Officers enforce and where their definitions come from and you can clearly see that these definitions only pertain to people driving in Commerce we all got tricked including yourself into being conditioned to think that we have to have a license or permit and or permission😂😂 from the government to be able to go about our business on the roadways. Come on you really think the government is above the Constitution??? you’re sadly mistaken.

Amen brother. They once said ignorance is bliss but now one mans ignorance is another man’s imprisonment. know your rights we must stand up for them before we loose all of them.

The guy in the top video does not know what he is saying. Yikes.

One can travel in a car, automobile OR personal conveyance.

One can be a sovereign state Citizen and not be a US citizen. However there are two types of citizenship of a state, one is a Citizen of a sovereign union state like California, Nevada, etc. and the other is a citizen of a federal municipality “State” like the State of California, the State of Nevada, etc.

This all could have been avoided by him asking for the cops BOND NUMBER, which would trigger the cop to call in a higher level law enforcement person who would understand the situation.

Never give a full name, only “My friend’s call me ___________.”

All I can say is WOW! You managed to type an entire page of utter nonsense and make no correct nor intelligent argument from beginning to end. Basically if anyone needs a laugh, come here and read. The sad thing is that a very few number of people will come here and think this is true. After all, if you read it on the internet, it has to be true. The three of you that believe all of this, PLEASE, crawl back under your rock. PLEASE do not drive. It is scary knowing you are actually in public and have no common sense. Scary stuff ??

I don’t ‘drive’. I travel. Driving is an occupation that can be regulated. And can be the victim of a ‘traffic’ stop. I’m not trafficking (shipping) anything. Traffic is a commercial term.

Someone ate the blue pill.

You want to know something even more funny is the fact that you have no idea literally what you’re talkin about you’re basically saying that the constitution is not real?? Oooh boy you can’t get mad ignorant people looks like you’re going to get a little learning session today. Many Supreme Courts have already acknowledged that we have the right to travel and it is a privilege to drive so get your facts straight go look up the UCC codes and look up the definition for yourself there’s a lot more than just three people that understand this to be true is the other side conditioned side that has a belief system. This is our constitutional right to be able to travel freely and unencumbered from molestation or tyranny do your due diligence.

I WOULD LIKE MORE INFORMATION ON THIS SUBJECT MATTER [email protected]

Linda- Please search for ‘driving’ on this site. https://www.educatedinlaw.org/?s=driving

Why would corupt thieves acting as pirates under admirality law the judges MOST OF ALL WHO BENEFIT from its perpetuation rule against itself and effect the coffers? You sound intelligent come on?

The one inescapable, unarguable fact is that when your argument is wrong, you don’t allow anyone else to talk, as if your constant haranguing will void their common sense and the rules and laws that we ALL have to live by (and are written down, if you can read). At least you guys are good for entertainment value. I can watch HOURS of you clowns and your insane arguments.

That’s most ignorant statement I’ve ever heard. You all are basically stating that the Constitution doesn’t pertain to the government as the Constitution was strictly enforced rules placed on the government by the people to protect the people from the government. The funny part is do you clearly have no clue what you’re talking about just like the rest of these conditions ignorant folks because you say something about law? Lol sir they push codes and statutes that is not law so get your s*** straight the only law that’s pushed as by the people constitutional law these codes and statutes that police officers enforce are not law you guys are too funny go do your due diligence do some research try reading the Constitution for once in your life might do you better than you ever thought.

The licensing scheme setup under the color of law is Ab Initio. The, all capital letters name, of a PERSON and The federal government(s) and other known aliases are “doing business as” the Lawful United States Government in Corporate Meritime structure and jurisdiction. They are a fraud and so are any contracts we’ve ever signed without full and knowing disclosure of the rights surfeit and forefeited by said contact.

absolutely 100% right on. Same goes for Canada. We’ve all been tricked

The truth is right in front of us! People mistakenly think they are driving (meaning for hire and engaged in commerce). They mistakenly think they need to register their car. They mistakenly think they have passengers (customers). They don’t know the meaning of motor vehicle, which likely means car for hire.

I now travel in Nevada; using Nevada Revised Statutes I sent letters to DMV, DPS, NHP, Carson City Sheriff, Reno PD, Sparks PD, and Washoe County Sheriff asking them if they found any problems with my reasons for surrendering my Registration and my Driver License. (when they sent me mail and asked why I was surrendering my DL I told them, in writing, “Not in commerce”. I also submitted a contract with a FEE Schedule for any LEO that interrupts my travel for any NON COMMERCIAL purpose. I also got a UCC financing Statement number from SOS with the natural woman being the Secured Party and the all caps name is my trade name. I have been followed twice and checked out 4 times and have not been stopped one time. /;-D No doubt there will be one cop out there who is going to show me who’s boss. Hahahaha!

Hey there 👋 id love to get some more detailed info on how/what steps i can follow in my search for the same thing you’ve described about your ‘drivers’ license/registration. I just got pulled over with an expired drivers license/registration (ticketed for the registration), even though i said i was traveling and i know i dont need a license/registration for non-commercial traveling. Can u help me figure out how to navigate myself towards your peaceful travelings? Thank you 🙏 Genie

If thou gave the title to the DMV, they may own the car, and can then mandate how thou uses it. Maybe get back the title. Thou may have to renounce the license. Also, ask what would happen to thee if thou did not sign whatever they give thee. If they say they will arrest ‘you’, then sign with “under duress”. I’d like to add that one may be able to engage in trade on the land while using a car; ‘commercial’ uses the root ‘mer’, which means sea, and implies it’s on the water, where they have more control. Must rebut this and say on the land. Also check Santos Bonacci – https://youtu.be/r_bYg2h6YNY?t=32 . And living in the private: https://livingintheprivate.blogspot.com/p/driving-is-commerce.html

I’m curious as to your statement about having a contract with a fee. Doesn’t having a contract with any government agency bind you to the government and all its laws, codes, privilege’s etc? I thought the point of freedom is the unalienable right protected by our creator and not the government.

I have sent DMV NOTICE OF NONE COMMERCIAL TRAVELER and that I am not a driver and I told them to cancel all contracts and recend my signature for non verification. I informed them if they fail to respond and comply with my request they will full commercial liability and default judgment for 150,000. I am getting ready to have them send me exempt license plates by court order. Does my request make any sense?

Makes a lot of sense, Keep me informed!

Is my request going to work

they took your link down because you were awaking the people! its says your video had been removed because the user violated the youtube community guidelines.

I still see the videos above. Please check again.

whats your update with DMV did they send the exempt tags?

Driving- operation and handling of a vehicle, such as a a car, truck, motorcycle or bike The definition states nothing about commerce or earning a living You’ve taken a definition and bent it to fit your narrative I’d bet all who try this get found guilty in the end

Hi Vin – Driving has always been a profession; as in truck driver, taxi driver, and the classic chauffeur driver. Using a car to travel from A to B is not driving. Further, motor vehicle, which is odd phrase on its face, is the term used to describe a conveyance registered with the DMV; meaning the DWV owns it. As far as I know, a car is not a motor vehicle unless it has been registered. WHile it is true that we all lean towards having things fit to our narrative, that does not apply here.

Why can no one simply give a clear and accurate answer about your Right to Travel Freely? From what I have read it is a fundamental unalienable Right to travel freely in your automobile on public roadways and highways without requiring paperwork, without being encumbered by corporate police. Only Drivers of commercial are required all paperwork. There is so many conflicting comments and opinions, its only made it more confusing. I have read over a dozen Supreme Court cases and their rulings. Just so we are clear the Supreme Court has ruled “The people have an unalienable RIGHT to Travel Freely on Public roadways, whether that be by wagon or horse drawn carriage. This is established by a fundamental right under God, which is why it is not addressed in the Constitution.” Such as a fundamental right to basic human needs, we do not need a Constitution to tell us what those needs are. All rulings were in favor of the defendants except 1 that involved an injury. Nothing was mentioned if the Defendants were US Citizens or State Citizens. I understand this was established before the 1871 Act and the treasonous illegal and unlawful act by Congress. Clearly I will continue to search for a more simple and accurate answer.

NY state session laws of 1904 differentiate between automobile and motor vehicle with the word OR.This delineation is paramount in law and is evidence of a statutory conversion.Liscense is for chauffeurs and operators.Read the NY V&T Law(code).

• Historically, what did “operator” refer to?
• Does thou have a link to the NY 1904 law or statute?

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. Thou can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Michigan tourist attractions

Constitutional Right to Travel Without a Drivers License: Understanding Your Freedom

Short answer: Constitutional right to travel without a driver’s license

The constitutional right to travel within the United States without a driver’s license is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution. However, the Supreme Court has recognized a fundamental right to interstate travel as protected under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, ensuring free movement between states. While states have imposed requirements for driving privileges, they must grant reasonable alternatives for individuals who cannot fulfill these requirements due to religious or medical reasons.

Understanding the Constitutional Right to Travel Without a Driver’s License

Do you know that your constitutional right to travel shouldn’t be hindered just because you don’t have a driver’s license? Yes, you read that right! While having a driver’s license may seem like an essential requirement for traveling within the United States, there is actually no constitutional obligation stating that citizens must possess one in order to exercise their right to travel freely.

So, what exactly does this mean? Does it imply that anyone can jump behind the wheel without any documentation or regulations? Definitely not. Let’s dive into the fascinating world of constitutional rights and shed light on the intriguing concept of lawfully traveling without a driver’s license.

The freedom of movement has been deemed as one of the fundamental rights safeguarded by the Constitution. This liberty encompasses both personal mobility within our homes and communities, as well as interstate and international travel. However, it is important to highlight that this right applies to all individuals, regardless of whether they own or drive a vehicle. In other words, not possessing a driver’s license does not equate to forfeiting your ability to travel freely.

To understand this better, we must explore two key U.S. Supreme Court cases: Saenz v. Roe (1999) and Kent v. Dulles (1958). In Saenz v. Roe, the Court stated explicitly that “the constitutional protection for freedom of movement affords protection against laws inconveniencing [a] citizen when he [or she] wishes ‘to be free from physical restraint'”—even if it pertains to restrictions on obtaining government benefits due solely to residency requirements .

In Kent v. Dulles, Chief Justice Earl Warren opined that freedom of movement is “a part of our heritage,” highlighting its significance in American society and its alignment with our democratic principles. Additionally, he emphasized that this right should be considered an inherent attribute of citizenship and protected against arbitrary state actions that limit or restrain it.

It becomes clear, then, that the freedom to travel is not contingent upon holding a driver’s license or any other specific permitting document. This constitutional right extends to all citizens, regardless of their mode of transportation—whether by foot, bicycle, public transportation, or even hitchhiking (within reason and applicable laws).

However, it is crucial to remember that while your right to travel without a driver’s license is protected under the Constitution, states still retain significant power in regulating road safety and traffic laws. State governments have the authority to set licensing requirements for individuals who choose to operate motor vehicles on public roads for the welfare and protection of all citizens.

In essence, this means that if you intend to operate a motor vehicle on public roads—a privilege separate from exercising your constitutional right to travel—you would need to comply with your respective state’s requirements by obtaining a valid driver’s license.

So why does this matter? Well, being aware of your constitutional rights ensures you can confidently assert them when necessary. If ever confronted with an unreasonable barrier when trying to exercise your freedom of movement without a driver’s license—such as unwarranted searches or detentions—it is valuable knowledge like this that can empower you in defending your rights.

It should be noted that this explanation shouldn’t be misinterpreted as advocating for reckless behavior or driving without proper authorization. Compliance with traffic laws and regulations remains essential for maintaining order on our roads and ensuring public safety.

In conclusion, understanding your constitutional right to travel without a driver’s license reveals an empowered perspective on individual liberties within our legal system. While owning a driver’s license facilitates access to certain privileges associated with operating motor vehicles on public roads deemed necessary by each state government, it does not overshadow nor restrict our inherent freedom of movement. So embrace the knowledge of your rights and venture forth confidently into the world while exercising responsible choices along the way!

Exploring the Historical Background of the Constitutional Right to Travel without a Driver’s License

Title: Journey Through Time: Uncovering the Constitutional Right to Travel without a Driver’s License

Introduction:

In today’s modern society, where cars have become an integral part of our daily lives, it can be easy to forget that the right to travel freely without a driver’s license we often take for granted is rooted in a rich historical background. So, let us embark on a captivating journey through time as we explore the fascinating origins and development of this constitutional right.

1. The Birth of Freedom:

To truly understand the historical background of the constitutional right to travel without a driver’s license, we must first delve into the foundations upon which our nation was built – freedom and liberty. The framers of the United States Constitution sought to establish a society that valued personal autonomy and mobility, unburdened by unnecessary government constraints.

2. The Early Days:

During the earliest years of American history, there were no formal requirements for citizens to possess driver’s licenses or any specific documentation to traverse roads . This freedom reflected the belief that an individual should be free to travel wherever they pleased without undue interference from authorities.

3. The Rise of Automobiles:

However, as technology advanced and automobiles became increasingly prevalent in society during the early 20th century, concerns arose regarding road safety and regulation. Consequently, states started instituting measures such as licensing requirements for drivers in order to maintain order on increasingly crowded roads.

4. Legal Challenges Emerge:

As states began implementing these new regulations, individuals who asserted their right to travel without restrictions faced legal challenges seeking clarification on their rights. These cases highlighted conflicting interpretations surrounding the interplay between personal liberty and public safety when it came to travel.

5. Supreme Court Rulings Shape History:

The landmark Supreme Court case Shew v Malloy (1911) played a pivotal role in shaping our understanding of the constitutional right to travel freely without burdensome governmental restraints. It held that imposing licensing fees or requirements that effectively barred certain individuals from exercising this right violated the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

6. State Obligations:

While individuals hold a constitutional right to travel without a driver’s license, states still have the authority to enact minimal regulations aimed at ensuring public safety on their roads. These regulations often include driver’s education programs, knowledge tests, and reasonable licensing fees – measures designed to strike a balance between personal liberties and societal well-being.

7. Ongoing Debates:

Today, as debates surrounding individual rights versus public safety continue to evolve, ongoing legal battles emerge regarding the extent to which state governments can impose restrictions on travel without infringing upon constitutionally protected freedoms. These discussions often grapple with temporal notions of privacy, identification requirements, and technological advancements that impact road safety.

Conclusion:

Examining the historical background of the constitutional right to travel freely without a driver’s license reveals an intricate tapestry woven with principles of freedom, personal autonomy, and public safety. While our forefathers may not have envisioned an era where modern modes of transportation would dominate our lives, their commitment to preserving individual liberties within a well-regulated society remains paramount. As we navigate this complex landscape in the present day and beyond, it is vital to remember the foundation upon which our freedom to travel was established – one rooted in history but always mindful of striking a harmonious balance between individual rights and societal responsibilities.

The Step-by-Step Process of Exercising Your Constitutional Right to Travel without a Driver’s License

Title: Breaking the Shackles: Unveiling the Step-by-Step Process of Exercising Your Constitutional Right to Travel without a Driver’s License

Introduction: In this tech-driven era, where automobiles reign supreme and driver’s licenses are almost synonymous with personal identity, it may come as a surprise that there exists an alternative way to exercise your constitutional right to travel. Yes, you read that correctly! Buckle up and get ready to embark on a journey where we unleash the secrets behind maneuvering through the labyrinthine legalities of traveling without a driver’s license. We’ll guide you step-by-step, unveiling the nuances and strategies required to embrace your freedom of movement.

Step 1: Understanding Your Constitutional Rights First things first – familiarize yourself with your constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has long upheld that every individual possesses the inherent freedom to travel within and across state lines—a notion enshrined by our founding fathers in the Privileges and Immunities Clause found in Article IV Section 2. By grasping this foundational concept, you empower yourself when engaging in discussions surrounding the legitimacy of traveling without a driver’s license.

Step 2: Knowledge is Power (Research): The second step involves arming yourself with knowledge. Dive deep into legal precedents such as Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Saenz v. Roe, US v. Guest, or even Kent v. Dulles—examples of landmark cases involving fundamental rights related to freedom of movement often cited by those advocating for traveling without a driver’s license.

Additionally, researching local legislation regarding exceptions or exemptions from typical licensing requirements will provide valuable insights into potential lawful alternatives within your jurisdiction.

Step 3: Bonding with Motorcycles & Bicycles: Let us not forget that vehicles other than privately-owned cars present excellent opportunities for exercising your right to travel freely! Motorcycles and bicycles come bearing liberation from license restrictions while still offering convenient modes of transportation. By embracing these alternatives, you can bypass the clutches of driver’s license requirements and relish in a different, more eco-friendly travel experience .

Step 4: Embracing the Power of Public Transportation: Public transportation systems are often overlooked when contemplating one’s right to travel without a driver’s license. Boasting numerous benefits such as affordability, convenience, reduced carbon footprint, and social interaction, they open up myriad avenues for self-expression and exploration while escaping traditional licensing norms. Subways, trains, buses – these modes of transportation put an end to the notion that personal vehicles are the only means of free movement.

Step 5: Carving Your Niche with Ridesharing Services: In this digital age of connectivity, ridesharing services have revolutionized how we traverse our cities . Say goodbye to owning a car or using a driver’s license as Uber and Lyft empower you to move around conveniently without being burdened by traditional driving demands. These services also foster opportunities for networking and forging connections while effortlessly enjoying mobility at your fingertips.

Step 6: Seeking Legal Advice (If Necessary): Although navigating through life without a driver’s license may seem exciting and liberating, it is crucial to understand that specific circumstances or legal jurisdictions may call for professional guidance. Don’t hesitate to consult lawyers experienced in constitutional rights or specialized areas like civil liberties; their expertise can ensure a smooth journey devoid of unnecessary legal pitfalls.

Conclusion: There you have it: your very own guidebook on exercising your constitutional right to travel without a driver’s license! Armed with knowledge about your fundamental rights, exploring alternative modes of transport such as motorcycles, bicycles, public transportation systems, or ridesharing services becomes not just a choice but an empowering act of personal freedom. Remember that embracing these options offers countless advantages beyond mere mobility — it fosters sustainability efforts while nurturing connections within your community. So go forth fearlessly into the world; emancipate yourself from the conventional norms and unleash your constitutional right to travel without a driver’s license!

Frequently Asked Questions about the Constitutional Right to Travel without a Driver’s License

In a world predominantly reliant on automobiles for commuting and transportation, the topic of whether or not we have a constitutional right to travel without a driver’s license often pops up. This blog aims to address some frequently asked questions surrounding this intriguing subject, exploring the legal framework and shedding light on misconceptions.

Q: Does the constitution grant us the right to travel without a driver’s license? A: The short answer is no, as there is no explicit provision within the United States Constitution that specifically addresses this issue. However, our constitutional rights are not solely limited to what is explicitly stated in the text.

Q: If there’s no specific mention of it, how can we claim a constitutional right? A: Our constitutional rights encompass more than just what is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution itself. The Supreme Court has recognized unenumerated rights that are inherent in individual liberties. One such concept is called “the right to travel,” which derives from various other rights in the Constitution.

Q: What are some of these underlying rights that contribute to the right to travel? A: Some scholars argue that freedom of movement falls under several provisions within the Bill of Rights, such as the First Amendment rights protecting association and assembly. Additionally, they assert that restrictions on interstate travel could infringe upon our fundamental privileges and immunities protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Q: Can states require driver’s licenses if there is a constitutional right at play? A: Yes, states can impose requirements such as obtaining a driver’s license for driving motor vehicles on public roads. However, these requirements must be reasonable and relate directly to legitimate governmental interests like public safety and regulation of roadways.

Q: Are there any court cases supporting an inherent right to travel without a driver’s license? A: Although no court case establishes an explicit fundamental right to drive without a license, decisions like Saenz v. Roe (1999) reaffirm the principle of such a right. This case emphasized that while states can impose certain restrictions, these must not infringe upon the essential right to travel.

Q: Are there any exceptions to requiring a driver ‘s license? A: Some exceptions exist for traveling without a driver’s license under specific circumstances. For instance, during emergencies or natural disasters, authorities may temporarily suspend or modify licensing requirements for immediate evacuation or rescue purposes.

Q: What happens if someone insists on driving without a license? A: Driving without a valid license generally violates state laws and could lead to legal consequences such as fines, penalties, or even arrest in some cases. It’s crucial to comply with the legal requirements of your jurisdiction to avoid such complications.

Navigating the nuances of constitutional rights and their implications can be complex. While the Constitution does not explicitly grant us the right to travel without a driver’s license, our freedom of movement remains an essential component of individual liberties protected by other provisions within it. Understanding these dynamics helps us comprehend how these rights intersect with our day-to-day lives in modern society while complying with pertinent legal regulations.

Common Challenges and Misconceptions Surrounding the Constitutional Right to Travel without a Driver’s License

The constitutional right to travel without a driver’s license is a topic that often stirs controversy and confusion. Even though this right is protected by the Constitution, there are several common challenges and misconceptions that surround it. In this blog post, we will delve into these misunderstood aspects with detailed professional explanations, infused with a touch of wit and cleverness.

Challenge #1: Confusion over the Right to Travel One of the most significant challenges in understanding this constitutional right is the confusion surrounding its actual scope. Many individuals mistakenly believe that it grants them the freedom to drive on public roads without a driver’s license. However, this right primarily refers to personal mobility – the freedom to move from place to place without undue government interference. While driving may be one aspect of exercising this right, it does not negate the requirement for valid identification or adherence to traffic laws .

Misconception #1: The Constitution grants an absolute right to drive. Contrary to popular belief, there is no explicit constitutional provision granting an absolute right to drive without any restrictions or licenses. Instead, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that governments can impose reasonable regulations on driving privileges for public safety reasons. These regulations aim at ensuring responsible and competent individuals operate motor vehicles safely on public roads.

Challenge #2: Arguments based on Sovereign Citizen Ideologies Some individuals subscribing to sovereign citizen ideologies argue that they are not subject to state or federal laws regarding driver’s licenses due to their unique interpretation of constitutional rights. This misconception stems from misinterpretations or blatant disregard for legal principles established by courts throughout history.

Misconception #2: The Constitution supports sovereign citizen claims. While everyone has the right to interpret legal texts within reason, sovereign citizen beliefs have been universally rejected by courts as illegitimate excuses for violating established traffic laws. The Constitution does not support claims that absolve individuals of adhering to valid driver’s license requirements . Instead, it acknowledges the authority of governments to regulate road travel for public safety.

Challenge #3: Right to Travel versus Driving Privilege Another challenge is distinguishing between the right to travel and the privilege of driving. The right to travel is considered a fundamental right, while driving on public roads is seen as a privilege subject to reasonable regulations. This distinction is pivotal in understanding that driving without a license infringes upon the privileges entrusted by the government rather than impeding one’s inherent freedom of mobility.

Misconception #3: A driver’s license is an unnecessary restriction on personal liberty. Contrary to popular misconceptions, requiring a driver’s license is not an arbitrary infringement on personal liberty. Rather, it ensures that individuals operating motor vehicles possess the necessary knowledge and skills for public safety. Driver’s licenses provide evidence that drivers have met minimum competency standards and are aware of essential traffic laws, which ultimately contributes to reducing accidents and maintaining order on our roads .

By shedding light on these common challenges and misconceptions surrounding the constitutional right to travel without a driver’s license, we aim to promote a more comprehensive understanding of this complex topic. While personal mobility remains central , it must be balanced with responsible adherence to regulations that prioritize both individual welfare and public safety.

Important Legal Considerations when Asserting Your Constitutional Right to Travel without a Driver’s License

Title: Essential Legal Factors When Exercising Your Inalienable Right to Travel Freely – Driver’s License Evasion 101

Introduction: It is an established fact that citizens possess the inherent Constitutional Right to travel without restrictions. For some, this may seem like an insurmountable legal hurdle, particularly when it comes to bypassing the necessity of a driver’s license. However, understanding the crucial legal considerations surrounding this issue can be empowering and enlightening. In this article, we shed light on important aspects you should consider when asserting your Constitutional Right to travel unencumbered by a driver’s license.

1. Unveiling the Constitutional Cornerstone: The right to travel without a driver’s license may appear as though it contradicts modern legislative frameworks; however, it finds its roots in fundamental constitutional principles. By delving into historical case precedents and exploring diverse interpretations of laws, individuals can better comprehend and justify their claim for unrestricted travel.

2. Grappling with Statutory Interpretations: When pursuing your right to travel sans a driver’s license, understanding statutory interpretations becomes essential. Scrutinizing state motor vehicle codes and regulations is crucial as they often provide exceptions or recognize alternative means of identification for lawful traveling purposes.

3. The Remarkable Defense: Establishing an Alternative Identification Documentation Strategy: Adhering strictly to state motor vehicle codes shouldn’t be seen as the sole option available for proving identity during travels without a driver’s license. Some jurisdictions acknowledge alternative forms of photo identification such as passports or government-issued IDs, which offer sufficient proof of identity without compromising driving privileges.

4. The Necessity of Diligent Preparation: Realizing your dream of traveling freely without a driver’s license entails careful preparation and groundwork beforehand. Conduct thorough research on relevant state statutes pertaining to individual liberties within transportation laws – such knowledge will empower you when defending your rights in any possible encounters with law enforcement officials.

5. Alternative Modes of Transportation: Exploring Possibilities: While the absence of a driver’s license may initially limit one’s options for travel , embracing alternative modes of transportation opens up unique opportunities. By exploring carpooling, public transit systems, or even rental services that allow non-driving individuals to hire experienced drivers, you can ensure uninterrupted mobility without compromising your Constitutional Rights.

6. Expert Legal Assistance: Navigating Complex Legal Terrain: Navigating potentially convoluted legal terrain requires expert guidance and support. Consider seeking legal counsel from professionals well-versed in constitutional law or civil liberties who can help articulate and strengthen your case when asserting your right to travel freely without a driver’s license.

Conclusion: Exercising the inalienable right to travel without a driver’s license demands comprehensive knowledge, careful planning, and an appreciation for the intricate interplay between constitutional principles and statutory interpretations. By understanding and leveraging these crucial legal considerations, individuals can responsibly assert their rights while ensuring a smooth and informed journey towards true freedom of movement.

Housing Authority: A Comprehensive Guide to Affordable Housing Solutions

Low Income Car Assistance: How to Get Help with Affordable Transportation

Temporary License Plate Expired: What to Do Next

Are There Honey Badgers in Michigan? Unveiling the Truth

What Age Does Travel Soccer Start?

Car Buying Assistance for Low Income Families: How to Get the Help You Need

Mobile Phlebotomist Jobs Near Me: Find Flexible Healthcare Opportunities

Michigan HYTA: Understanding the Benefits and Eligibility Requirements

Debunking sovereign citizens, freemen-on-the-land and other pseudo-legal theories.

Is there a right to travel without a driver's license in the united states.

Right to Travel vs. Freedom of Movement

The phrase "right to travel" should be clarified because it's commonly confused.

Many cases, documents, etc. using the phrase "right to travel" are in fact about Freedom of Movement , which is the Constitutional right to travel between States at will. If anyone speaks of a "Constitutional right to travel" Freedom of Movement is the only valid thing they could be referring to, as we'll show.

In pseudo-legal circles, "right to travel" means the supposed right to "travel freely in your private property / automobile / conveyance on the public roads / highways without a driver's license, insurance or registration and exempt from regulation or interruption provided one does not engage in commerce / earn profit or cause harm to people or property."

Absolute freedom! Could it be true? How does the law work?

Tenth Amendment, State Codes

Traffic regulation isn't mentioned in the Constitution, the supreme law of the land , therefore the power generally falls to the States pursuant to the 10th Amendment :

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

States are free to enact whatever traffic regulations they want provided they do not violate federal law, as determined by the federal courts, pursuant to their police power .

All 50+ States, through their legislatures consisting of the people's elected representatives, have seen fit to devise and enact their own traffic codes and police them.

Was it always this way?

There wasn't always legislation displacing the common law. Automobile regulation began in the early 1900's. Here is an excellent paper that thoroughly explores the transitional period when decisions could go either way: The Orphaned Right: The Right to Travel by Automobile, 1890-1950 .

Bicycles were regulated decades before automobiles were invented and activists of the day faced many of the same questions and challenges modern right to travel proponents do. An analysis of that period can be found in this publication: The Impact of the Sport of Bicycle Riding on Safety Law .

Constitutionality

The States have all enacted traffic regulations, but do they violate federal law or the Constitution?

Judging constitutionality is ultimately up to the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 3:

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Appeals are more-often-than-not declined by the Supreme Court so adjudication may stop at the federal United States Courts of Appeals (circuit courts) or District Courts and those are a good place to look for precedent, too. We prefer citations from these federal courts to avoid presumptions of bias that might arise by the State judging its own regulations and because federal decisions are superior to State decisions pursuant to the Supremacy Clause .

Federal Court Decisions

Let's have a look at some federal cases on the right of States to regulate traffic.

Hendrick v. Maryland 235 US 610 (1915)

The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the ways themselves . . . In the absence of national legislation covering the subject a State may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles — those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. And to this end it may require the registration of such vehicles and the licensing of their drivers . . . This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the States and essential to the preservation of the health, safety and comfort of their citizens.

Hess v. Pawloski 274 US 352 (1927)

Motor vehicles are dangerous machines; and, even when skillfully and carefully operated, their use is attended by serious dangers to persons and property. In the public interest the State may make and enforce regulations reasonably calculated to promote care on the part of all, residents and non-residents alike, who use its highways.

Reitz v. Mealey 314 US 33 (1941)

The use of the public highways by motor vehicles, with its consequent dangers, renders the reasonableness and necessity of regulation apparent. The universal practice is to register ownership of automobiles and to license their drivers. Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process.

There we have three solid federal Supreme Court decisions that set nationwide precedent that cannot be ignored. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of law in the United States. Unless "right to travel" proponents can come up with a later Supreme Court ruling that states otherwise, their claims are busted.

And we have one less-impressive but telling quote from a lower federal district court:

Wells v. Malloy 402 F. Supp. 856 (1975)

Although a driver's license is an important property right in this age of the automobile, it does not follow that the right to drive is fundamental in the constitutional sense.

A few of the above cases were found in a somewhat inflammatory and dated but comprehensive publication, Idiot Legal Arguments . We picked out the relevant federal cases, but many more high-level State cases can be found there, too, if you're interested.

There actually isn't a whole lot at the federal level because appeals beyond State courts are often denied as it has long been accepted by the federal government that traffic regulation is a proper exercise of State police power. Federal courts uphold the ability of States to regulate road traffic provided it is done so with equality, reasonableness and for public safety and doesn't violate any federal laws or rights.

But I don't "drive" or use a "motor vehicle"! Those are legal terms used to enslave me and I'm smarter than that!

I'm afraid the State and its courts dictate how things are viewed under its law. You don't get to decide what's considered driving or a motor vehicle, they do. You can't simply switch out a few words to avoid responsibility. If you're in territory controlled by the US and/or a State then its laws may be applied to you and you have no lawful recourse (see Law Basics ).

I've heard of people being ignored or let go by police, even without a license or insurance!

Police have discretion . The world is a very dynamic place. There are any number of reasons why you might be passed by or allowed to proceed at any given time. The cop might be a scared rookie, not care, not want to fight, have a date, have to pee, be on lunch break, be at the end of their shift and going home – think about it – they're human, not machines. The priorities of police and prosecuting attorneys vary. The law is what it is, though, and when you understand it you know in the long run you're looking for trouble if you don't obey it.

I don't like traffic regulations. What can I do?

Your lawful remedy is to convince the majority of people in your State to put pressure on your elected representatives in the State legislature to change the law. That or you could move to another State or country where there are less regulations (and perhaps more fatalities ).

Study hard, verify claims, think for yourself, question this, comment.

• Right to Travel
• United States

Herman: Your "right to travel in a vehicle using human decision-making"

Yes, state Rep. Matt Schaefer knows there’s a pandemic and a panoply of other present priorities.

No, he doesn’t think his House Joint Resolution 98 , filed this week, deals with something that's a right-now problem.

But yes, Schaefer, R-Tyler, thinks it addresses a down-the-road, oncoming infringement against which Texans need constitutional protection in our state’s Bill of Rights, right in there with equality, jury trials and freedom of worship, speech and press.

HJR 98 proposes to enshrine this new right in the Texas Constitution: “A person has the right to travel in a vehicle using human decision-making to operate the vehicle.”

Prior to delving into the why and what the heck of HJR 98, let’s talk about the where. Schaefer wants the amendment to become section 35 of Article 1 of the Texas Constitution (which, overall, now has an astounding 507 amendments). Article 1 is the Bill of Rights that kicks off with “That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:”

Lots of rights are declared. Too many to delineate here. But let’s take a look at the neighborhood where the right to “travel in a vehicle using human decision-making” would reside if approved by lawmakers during the current legislative session and voters in November.

Section 32 of the Bill of Rights, added in 2005, declares “Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.” That’s still in our Bill of Rights, but it’s wrong because of the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling saying it is.

Next up is Section 33, added in 2009, guaranteeing public access to "a state-owned beach bordering on the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico, extending from mean low tide to the landward boundary of state-owned submerged land, and any larger area extending from the line of mean low tide to the line of vegetation bordering on the Gulf of Mexico to which the public has acquired a right of use or easement to or over the area by prescription or dedication or has established and retained a right by virtue of continuous right in the public under Texas common law.”

(You might want to consult a lawyer prior to taking full advantage of that particular right.)

And the newest constitutional right, added as Section 34 in 2015, reads, “The people have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, including by the use of traditional methods, subject to laws or regulations to conserve and manage wildlife and preserve the future of hunting and fishing.”

Which brings us to the proposed addition of Section 35 to the Texas Bill of Rights.

Schaefer: “I can see a time when we have so-called public safety advocates and those in the insurance industry, maybe even those who are wanting to do city planning or avoid traffic congestion, in an age where artificial intelligence and autonomous vehicles are abundant, they're just going to tell you, for these reasons, you can only drive during certain times of the day. If you're going from point A to point B, you have to take this route.

“And they're going to begin to encroach on your decision-making about driving your own vehicle,” he continued. “And I think that's a problem. And I think the technology is moving a lot faster than people realize. And I think that we need to enshrine this right for Texans in the Constitution now while most people would think this is a good idea.”

Because it’s something that I — as one who enjoys the feel of a steering wheel and shift knob in hand — have pondered, I asked Schaefer if he harbors any concern that the day could come when self-driving cars will be the only kind allowed on the roads.

“Not only that,” he said, “I think that the government will begin to tell people when and where they can drive.”

And that’s the heart of the presentation Schaefer hopes to make on the House floor if HJR 98 gets there, which he acknowledges is a challenge. “It’s an idea I’ve had and I shared it with some members, and I get a lot of heads nods,” he said, fully aware it’s a long legislative way from head nods to aye votes.

That reality aside, Schaefer said: “I think it’s the right thing to do. I think it’s reasonable. And I think that the concern is legitimate. This is not a gimmick. This is something that I think we need to do.”

“People should be able to get in their car and go for a drive without purpose or destination,” he said.

(Please keep to yourself any wisecracks about seeing too many drivers who seem devoid of purpose or destination.)

I’ll keep an eye on HJR 98, but be forewarned this could be the first and last you hear about it. But there is something very Texan about heading to a public beach to do some fishing and getting there via a vehicle guided by the God-given, though not infallible, gift of human decision-making.

Traffic delays and other issues mark total solar eclipse day

Authorities on Monday reported traffic crashes and significant road delays across the country as thousands of people flocked to prime locations to gaze up at the rare solar eclipse – and then made their way home again.

Local roads and highways in states including Texas, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Vermont and New Hampshire were impacted by the flood of drivers, many of whom were from out of state. The most intense bottlenecks appeared to be in the path of totality , a vast swath of the country – approximately 115 miles wide, crossing through 13 states – where people were able to view the total eclipse.

Traffic slowed on major highways in Indiana as the eclipse progressed Monday afternoon. State transportation officials posted video showing backups forming on Interstate 65 headed toward Indianapolis, the Indianapolis Star reported. The Courier & Press in Evansville reported delays after the eclipse ended.

Indiana State Police Sgt. John Perrine posted on X that traffic on state highways was flowing but rest stops along interstates in the path of totality are at or near capacity. 

Perrine said transportation officials planned to shut them down "once they are full and will not allow any more traffic in for the duration of the eclipse." One rest stop along I-74 near Veedersburg, northwest of Indianapolis, closed because it had reached maximum capacity from "eclipse viewing traffic." 

In Oklahoma, a crash around 7:30 a.m. local time narrowed eastbound lanes on I-40, a major transcontinental highway that runs from California to North Carolina. The crash occurred not far from several state parks that were hosting eclipse events, and was within driving distance of the full eclipse path, which included parts of southeastern Oklahoma and Arkansas.

"Crews estimate cleanup will take the majority of the day. Expect delays in the area and use extra caution. #trucking #eclipse," said a post on X by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation .

Multiple crashes were reported in Waco, Texas, a city in the path of totality, which hosted several festivities and eclipse viewing events. The crashes all occurred on I-35, which runs from southern Texas to Minnesota. The wrecks shut down multiple lanes.

"Expect major traffic delays in this area," the Texas Department of Transportation said in a statement around 9 a.m. local time.

Officials warn drivers of delays, dangers ahead of solar eclipse

In the weeks leading up to the celestial event, officials issued warnings about heavy traffic congestion and the danger of driving during the eclipse , including distracted pedestrians and the sudden change in light conditions. Eclipses have previously been tied with surges in traffic crashes, including fatal collisions.

In New York, extra troopers were staged throughout the entire state, especially in northern counties and cities, such as Buffalo, from which spectators can see a full eclipse, according to the New York State Police .

In Ohio, the state's Turnpike and Infrastructure Commission heavily staffed its toll booths, service plazas and maintenance buildings in anticipation of the eclipse, which it has designated as "a high-volume traffic event" like, for example, Thanksgiving.  The Ohio Emergency Management Agency estimates, for the solar eclipse, between 150,000 and 575,000 travelers will visit the state, which encompasses areas in the path of totality.

During the 2017 eclipse, congestion in some areas lasted for up to 13 hours after totality,  according to Transportation Research News , a National Research Council publication. An analysis of traffic patterns from that year suggests the worst of the traffic – on interstates and rural back roads alike – will kick off after the eclipse ends and everyone tries to leave all at once.

Contributing: Kayla Jimenez and Phaedra Trethan, USA TODAY ; The Indianapolis Star

• Solar Eclipse 2024

‘20 or 30 Super Bowls.’ Drivers and Officials Brace for Massive Eclipse Traffic Jams

M elissa Schleig, a postmaster who lives in Strasburg, Virginia, drove more than 400 miles southwest to the Smoky Mountains to see the 2017 solar eclipse. The travel experience was miserable.

“It should have taken us about six to seven hours to go down there but it took us about a little over six hours just to go about two hours south of here. It was insane,” said Schleig, who began to drive down the day before the eclipse. 

At least 5 million people traveled for the 2017 eclipse, according to a journal by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, but even more are expected to gather to witness this year’s total solar eclipse on April 8. Already, an estimated 31.6 million people currently live in the roughly 115-mile wide path of totality —compared to the 12 million that did in 2017. 

“Having a total solar eclipse pass through the U.S. is kind of like having 20 or 30 Super Bowls happening all at once,” says Richard Fienberg, project manager of the American Astronomical Society's Solar Eclipse Task Force. “So many people are gathering for the spectacle over a long distance.”

Read More : How Cities Around the U.S. Are Celebrating the Eclipse

Transportation agencies are coordinating with the National Weather Service to spot areas of high interest for eclipse viewing to better prepare for traffic delays, but they say the impacts are unavoidable. “The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) knows that there is great interest in this rare solar event, and that’s why we want everyone to be aware of the real traffic and safety impacts,” FHWA Administrator Shailen Bhatt told TIME in an email. “We want people to remember this day and this experience—that may be once in a lifetime—for all the right reasons.”

This year Schleig, who is part of a Facebook eclipse chasing group, is traveling to the Canadian side of Niagara Falls to view the eclipse. And she’s hoping to learn from her 2017 mistakes: she’s planning to avoid the traffic by extending her trip from April 4 through the 10th, instead of driving the day before like she did last time.

How bad will traffic be? 

The FHWA says Schleig has the right idea. It is advising people to drive early, and stay longer in the town where they’re viewing the eclipse to avoid traffic. The FHWA says it's hard to predict which cities or states will be most impacted by the eclipse traffic-wise, but they predict up to 5 million people will be traveling to the path of totality between Texas and Maine.   

While drivers and officials are looking to the 2017 eclipse for hints of what is to come, traffic will likely be much worse this time. That’s because the 2024 path of totality—the area where the moon will completely obscure the sun—is a 3-hour drive away from 8 major cities with a population greater than 2 million, including Chicago, Houston, and Toronto. By contrast, the 2017 eclipse path of totality was a 3-hour drive away from only three larger metropolitan areas: St. Louis, Kansas City, and Portland, Ore.

Read More : How to Use Your Smartphone to Take Photos of the Solar Eclipse

If the expected 5 million visitors were to leave the path of totality as soon as the eclipse ends, the ensuing traffic would be equivalent to 71 sold out football games ending all at once, according to a journal by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.

Where are people traveling?

Several eclipse chasers, like 62-year-old photographer Beth Hutter, told TIME that they were planning to travel to Texas because it has the lowest chance of cloud cover. “We didn't want to take a chance that the day of the eclipse it [would be] overcast and rainy,” said Hutter, who is traveling from Michigan to Kileen, Texas five days before the eclipse. “We made the mistake of trying to drive home the same day [for the 2017 eclipse]... So thankfully, because we're going to be right there, I don't think we're going to have to deal with the traffic nightmares that most people are going to have.”

Texas Department of Transportation media relations director Adam Hammons says that up to one million out-of-state visitors may be traveling to view the eclipse, in addition to the millions that already live in the state and will likely also be driving to different areas/cities.  

Hammons says the eclipse runs through I-35, which is a significant corridor in the state that traverses through small towns as well as larger metro areas like Austin, Dallas, and Fort Worth. “It really goes through a large portion of Texas,” he says. “There’s going to be some possible significant delays on these major corridors and/or farm roads…Give yourself extra travel time. Plan ahead your trip, plan your route,” Drivetexas.org, a website that shares real-time traffic updates, could be helpful in deciding which way to go. 

Regardless of where you choose to see the eclipse, Hammons says it's important to have a safe, designated place to park and enjoy the experience—as long as it's off the shoulder of the highway.

Read More : Here’s What Determines How Long the Total Eclipse Will Last in Your Location

Other states like Arkansas, which has a population of some 3 million people , could see anywhere from 300,000 to 1.5 million visitors. (State officials have cited varying estimates .) The most extreme traffic will be seen along AR Highway 70 to Benton, AR Highway 65 from Conway to Greenbrier, and more. "There’s no doubt our Interstates and highways could be tested," Arkansas Department of Transportation Director Lorie H. Tudor told TIME in a statement, "but we have put forth our best planning efforts and we are cautiously optimistic that we are as prepared as possible to address any foreseeable issues that may arise."

New York is another state expecting a high volume of visitors and traffic. Many residents and out-of-state visitors will be traveling to the western and northern regions of the state, with Niagara Falls being an area of high interest. "We are expecting as many as a million people to come to Erie County solely for the eclipse," says Peter Anderson, press secretary for the Erie County executive, where Niagara Falls is based. According to data collected by Priceline and shared with TIME, Buffalo, New York has the second highest average airfare price compared to the travel cost to seven cities along the path of totality— including Dallas, Indianapolis, and Cleveland—at $999, and the most expensive average nightly hotel room cost among those cities listed at $476.

Still, for many of the eclipse watchers, braving bad traffic will be worth it. “It's just one of those things where you just realize your place in the world, and how small you are in comparison to the rest of the universe,” says Hutter. “The world just kind of stops.”

More Must-Reads From TIME

• Exclusive: Google Workers Revolt Over $1.2 Billion Contract With Israel
• Jane Fonda Champions Climate Action for Every Generation
• Stop Looking for Your Forever Home
• The Sympathizer Counters 50 Years of Hollywood Vietnam War Narratives
• The Bliss of Seeing the Eclipse From Cleveland
• Hormonal Birth Control Doesn’t Deserve Its Bad Reputation
• The Best TV Shows to Watch on Peacock
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Contact us at [email protected]

Check out Indiana traffic conditions the day of the total solar eclipse

Months of preparation around the state have led to a day when thousands are expected to flock to Indiana . Several cities are in the path of today's total solar eclipse.

Traffic backed up on I-65 near Lafayette

Log in or sign up to view

Traffic at a standstill along Hamilton County interstates

Crash slows traffic on i-70 in hancock county.

There is a crash on I-70 westbound near Mt. Comfort Road in Hancock County. The Indiana Department of Transportation is asking motorists to avoid the area.

Officials suggest waiting to travel

INDOT suggested after the eclipse, travelers wait a bit before hitting the road again.

Rest stop parks at capacity

Indiana State Police Public information officer Sgt. John Perrine posted on X/Twitter that rest parks on state interstates on the path of totality are reaching capacity. "INDOT Will be closing off the rest parts once they are full and will not allow any more traffic in for the duration of the eclipse," his post said.

UPDATE: Traffic picking up on Indiana highways

According to INDOT, traffic started picking up along the path of totality on Indiana highways in the late morning.

Light traffic across Indiana on morning before eclipse

With schools and other locations closed, things started off slow. In Indianapolis, traffic was light downtown, with more traffic near the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. In Bloomington, streets were clearer than usual during the morning commute hours, with plenty of parking open on the downtown square. No traffic issues were reported on state highways near Evansville as of 7:50 a.m., according to the Courier & Press live coverage blog .

Eclipse day is here: Read updates from IndyStar reporters in the field

On X/Twitter, the Indiana State Police's feed this morning urged caution. "Please be prepared, patient and save while traveling to and from your viewing destination," one post reads.

Safe driving tips for the total solar eclipse

The Indiana Department of Transportation's feed reiterated that drivers should arrive early, stay put and leave late today.

INDOT also offered the following tips for driving this afternoon:

• Keep your headlights on.
• Do not wear your eclipse glasses while driving.
• Find a designated place to watch safely.

Get Indiana traffic information live

INDOT's TrafficWise app , available on desktop or mobile, offers information about delays, accidents, construction and other road hazards. You can also see stills from highway cameras around the state.

You can also call 511 to check travel conditions on Indiana highways.

IndyStar executive editor Eric Larsen contributed to this report.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Road Trips: How to Plan an Accessible Getaway

By Syren Nagakyrie

Planning an accessible road trip is getting a little easier for people with disabilities. There are more resources created by and for the disability community, and the tourism industry is starting to recognize the value of accessible travel. As a disabled, chronically ill, neurodivergent person, I take road trips every year and have learned some tips and tricks along the way.

Renting a vehicle

Most major car companies offer adaptive driving devices for their vehicles at no additional cost. Enterprise , for example, offers hand controls, left foot accelerators, pedal extenders and spinner knobs to facilitate steering. Budget can provide hand controls, spinner knobs, a panoramic mirror, swivel seats and transfer boards. Be prepared to request adaptive devices at least three business days in advance.

For a wheelchair-accessible van with a ramp or a lift, rent from a mobility company like BraunAbility , one of the largest builders of wheelchair-accessible vans in the country, with rentals at many locations. MobilityWorks , an accessible-vehicle and adaptive-equipment dealer, has rental locations in 34 states. AccessibleGO , which offers a one-stop shop for adapted rental cars and wheelchair-accessible vans, has agreements with 100 wheelchair van rental locations nationwide; request a quote on their website. For accessibleGO’s rental cars, you can request hand controls and a spinner knob at checkout.

Route planning

You can use Google Maps, Waze and MapQuest for initial accessibility research using photos and street view. Google Maps provides directions for some wheelchair-accessible pedestrian and transit routes.

Sites such as Roadtrippers and Furkot can plot an entire itinerary. While these websites are not disability specific, they are invaluable tools. (Roadtrippers does have a wheelchair-accessible check box in the search function.) You can filter by types of destinations such as national parks or museums, and search for hotels and campgrounds. Furkot allows you to input how long you want to drive each day, whether you want to travel on Interstate highways or take more scenic roads. The app will determine the best route and length of time between stops, and suggest where to stay overnight.

Finding lodging

While hotels and other accommodations are required to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act, many hotels do not meet all accessibility needs. Most of the booking sites list hotels with accessible rooms for those with mobility, hearing and vision needs, but this information is not always verified. Do additional research on review sites and look for photos. Hyatt, Marriott, Hilton and Fairmont hotels offer allergy-friendly and scent-free rooms in some locations. Call the hotel to verify accessibility and to make sure a specific room is reserved for you.

Vacation rentals are typically not required to be A.D.A. compliant, but some do provide accessibility information. Airbnb recently rolled out an adapted category with accessibility search features and homes that have been scanned for accessibility. Review photos and contact the host for more information. Some hosts will make accommodations, such as changing the cleaning supplies or shifting furniture, but document your request using the in-app messaging system so that customer service can help if you run into issues.

Wheel the World is an accessible travel agency offering bookings at over 3,000 verified accessible hotels in the United States. The hotels have been reviewed in person by trained assessors; only those that meet the criteria are listed. Sign up as a disabled traveler or a companion and complete a personal profile that includes options for a variety of disabilities and accessibility needs. The site will provide listings that match your profile with partial, adequate and outstanding match options.

Food and medication

There are a variety of options to keep food or medication cold while traveling. Electric coolers can plug into your vehicle’s 12-volt outlet, but pay attention to the type of cooling mechanism — the less expensive versions are usually thermoelectric and will cool only to about 30 degrees below ambient temperature (if it is 70 degrees in the car, it will cool to 40 degrees). Compressor coolers are more expensive but maintain normal refrigerated temperatures.

Many hotels provide mini-refrigerators. When you know you will be stopping somewhere with a fridge almost every night, layer large ice packs and supplies in a cooler, then top them with another insulating layer like a cooling bag. This keeps everything cold for a couple of days at a time.

It’s also a good idea to travel with a single-burner cooktop — electric to use inside, or propane to use at rest areas and campgrounds — and a camp mess kit so that you can safely cook meals.

Some of the best apps to find food, restaurants and grocery stores that accommodate dietary needs are Fig for allergy-specific options, Happy Cow for vegan-friendly options and Find Me Gluten Free for celiac-safe spots. Add your favorite options to the route-planning app so that you know where to stop.

Finding activities

In addition to the apps mentioned in the route-planning section, state and local tourism organizations are good sources for accessible destinations.

National parks and monuments, which are required to meet federal accessibility guidelines, typically have visitor centers and recreation sites with accessible features. Each park website has information, as well as programs and services within the park. While accessibility varies, you can usually find information on wheelchair-accessible trails and campsites, tactile and audio features, assistive listening devices, and American Sign Language interpreters.

At state parks, accessibility features may not be consistent, but you can usually find some information on each park’s website.

Apps like AllTrails list wheelchair-friendly trails across the country, but the information may not be verified, so contact the park or land manager for verification. Among the parks with notable accessible trails are Redwood National and State Parks, North Cascades National Park, Badlands National Park, and Great Smoky Mountains National Park .

Syren Nagakyrie, the founder of the nonprofit Disabled Hikers and the author of “The Disabled Hiker’s Guide to Western Washington and Oregon” and “The Disabled Hiker’s Guide to Northern California,” among other guidebooks, leads group hikes and conducts assessments throughout the United States.

Open Up Your World

Considering a trip, or just some armchair traveling here are some ideas..

52 Places:  Why do we travel? For food, culture, adventure, natural beauty? Our 2024 list has all those elements, and more .

Mumbai:  Spend 36 hours in this fast-changing Indian city  by exploring ancient caves, catching a concert in a former textile mill and feasting on mangoes.

Kyoto:  The Japanese city’s dry gardens offer spots for quiet contemplation  in an increasingly overtouristed destination.

Iceland:  The country markets itself as a destination to see the northern lights. But they can be elusive, as one writer recently found .

Texas:  Canoeing the Rio Grande near Big Bend National Park can be magical. But as the river dries, it’s getting harder to find where a boat will actually float .

american history

• the constitutionally repugnant reconstruction acts imposed the 14th amendment via martial law powers in time of peace
• free at last
• america - some assembly required
• understanding the new world order
• quick start guide
• There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"!

three constitutions

• three constitutions (this article in development)

correct your status

• correcting your political status
• a call to action that can no longer wait
• 1779 vs. 928s
• Declaration of Political Status
• the truth about the irs
• global sovereign's handbook

driving and traveling

Right to travel without a license.

• the twelve presumptions of court
• judicial notice / demand for rights
• 18 U.S. Code § 241 - conspiracy against rights
• 18 U.S. Code § 242 - deprivation of rights under color of law

reconstruction

• who and what is the state assembly
• who controls whom
• structure of the original government to be reconstructed
• the american government
• the jural assembly handbook

corporate documents

• Hospitals and Physicians Handbook on Birth Registration and Fetal Death Reporting

the academy

Correct your status: 101.

• Articles coming soon

reconstruction: 101

• CRACKING THE CODE

state enactments

Florida state enactments, 3.4 out of 5 stars, u.s. supreme court says no license necessary to drive automobile on public roads.

“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.

How can we improve this article?

Please submit the reason for your vote so that we can improve the article..

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

EU lawmakers approve an overhaul of the bloc's migration laws

The Associated Press

Members of European Parliament participate in a series of votes as they attend a plenary session at the European Parliament in Brussels, Wednesday, April 10, 2024. Geert Vanden Wijngaert/AP hide caption

Members of European Parliament participate in a series of votes as they attend a plenary session at the European Parliament in Brussels, Wednesday, April 10, 2024.

BRUSSELS — European Union lawmakers approved Wednesday a major revamp of the bloc's migration laws, hoping to end years of division over how to manage the entry of thousands of people without authorization and deprive the far right of a vote-winning campaign issue ahead of June elections.

In a series of 10 votes, members of the European Parliament endorsed the regulations and policies that make up the Pact on Migration and Asylum. The reforms address the thorny issue of who should take responsibility for migrants when they arrive and whether other EU countries should be obliged to help.

The proceedings were briefly interrupted by a small but noisy group of demonstrators in the public gallery who wore shirts marked "this pact kills" and shouted "vote no!"

The 27 EU member countries must now endorse the reform package, possibly in a vote in late April, before it can take effect.

A rescue ship saved them from the sea. Now these migrants find a tough road in Europe

European Parliament President Roberta Metsola, a former lead lawmaker on migration who helped pave the way for the reform package, posted "History made," on X, formerly Twitter, after the votes.

"It has been more than 10 years in the making. But we kept our word. A balance between solidarity and responsibility. This is the European way," she wrote.

German Interior Minister Nancy Faeser described the result as a "major and very important success."

"After years of tough negotiations, we have agreed on this comprehensive package. We have thus overcome a deep division in Europe," said Faeser, whose country has been a top destination for people seeking refuge, in a written statement.

"We continue to protect people fleeing terrible wars, terror, torture and murder. But this responsibility for refugees will be spread across more shoulders in future," she added.

The plan was drawn up after 1.3 million people, mostly those fleeing war in Syria and Iraq, sought refuge in Europe in 2015. The EU's asylum system collapsed, reception centers were overwhelmed in Greece and Italy, and countries further north built barriers to stop people entering.

More than 2,500 migrants crossing the Mediterranean died or went missing this year

But few have admitted to being happy with the new policy response to one of Europe's biggest political crises, and even the lawmakers who drafted parts of the new regulations are unwilling to support the entire reform package.

"I'm not going to open a bottle of champagne after this," Dutch lawmaker Sophie i'nt Veld, who drew up the assembly's position on migrant reception conditions, told reporters on the eve of the plenary session in Brussels.

Swedish parliamentarian Malin Bjork, who worked on refugee resettlement, said that the pact does not respond to "any of the questions it was set to solve."

She said the reform package "undermines the individual right to seek asylum" in Europe because it would build on plans that some EU countries already have to process migrants abroad. Italy has concluded one such deal with Albania. Bjork's Left group voted against the pact.

The new rules include controversial measures: facial images and fingerprints could be taken from children from the age of 6, and people may be detained during screening. Fast-track deportation could be used on those not permitted to stay.

On the other side of the ledger, countries can be obligated to help their EU partners by offering to house people eligible for asylum or, failing that, to pay the costs of lodging them elsewhere.

Climate, migration and the far right

There is a myth about mass migration to europe. but some people do risk it all.

Migrant and human rights groups mostly slammed the reform package.

In a joint statement, 22 charity groups, including the International Rescue Committee and Oxfam, said the pact "leaves troubling cracks deep within Europe's approach to asylum and migration, and fails to offer sustainable solutions for people seeking safety at Europe's borders."

However, they did note that part of the reforms governing the resettlement of migrants to Europe from outside the bloc "offers a glimmer of hope for many refugees across the globe."

Eve Geddie from Amnesty International described it as "a failure to show global leadership."

"For people escaping conflict, persecution, or economic insecurity, these reforms will mean less protection and a greater risk of facing human rights violations across Europe — including illegal and violent pushbacks, arbitrary detention, and discriminatory policing," she said.

Mainstream political parties wanted to secure agreement on the pact ahead of Europe-wide elections on June 6-9. Migration is a likely campaign issue, and they believe the reforms address concerns about an issue that has been a consistent vote-winner for far-right parties.

In a post on X, Beata Szydlo, a member of Poland's nationalist Law and Justice party and a former prime minister, slammed the pact on Wednesday. "The migration policy of the EU is wrong and needs to be changed. But you can't put out the fire by adding more oil to it," she said.

The outcry over migrants in Europe focuses largely on the tiny minority of people who enter on unseaworthy boats or cross Europe's borders on foot. Millions enter legally each year. Less than 10% are living in Europe illegally, and the majority of those entered with permission but refused to leave when their visas expired.

The main issue, once the regulations are completely endorsed, is whether the member countries will ever fully implement them, and whether the EU's executive branch, the European Commission, will enforce the rules when it has chosen not to do so to avoid exacerbating the political crisis in recent years.

• European Parliament