Frank, I'll see your 3 Supreme Court cases and raise you 5 Supreme's and 5 States. Bring me more, and I'll raise you more. There are literally thousands of cases from the US Supreme's to the Circuits to the State Supreme's. None of them ever overturned by higher courts. That makes them LAW. In those States and/or Circuits...
"The state cannot diminish rights of the people." Hurtado v. California (1884) 1 110 US 516 U.S. Supreme Court. Never overturned. It's the Law!
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489 U.S. Supreme Court. Never overturned. It's the Law!
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, (1966) 1 384 US 436, 491. U.S. Supreme Court. Never overturned. It's the Law!
?The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. So much is conceded by the Solicitor General. In Anglo-Saxon law that right was emerging at least as early as the Magna Carta. ? Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958) U.S. Supreme Court. Never overturned. It's the Law!
Edwards v California (1941) 314 U.S. 160. The court held that a state may not condition interstate travel upon wealth or lack thereof. U.S. Supreme Court. Never overturned. It's the Law!
State Supreme Court Decisions:
"The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the right to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the constitutional guarantees of which the citizen not be deprived without due process of law." Berberian v. Lussier, 139 A.2d 869, 872; 87 R.I. 226, 231 (1958). See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963).
[Rhode Island and Arizona]
"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).
[Idaho]
"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).
[California]
"The power to license necessarily includes the power to inhibit unlicensed persons from doing the acts authorized by license. The power to refuse license necessarily gives the power to limit the issuance of licenses." Ex parte M.T. Dickey, 76 W. Va.576, 585; 85 SE 781.
[West Virginia]
In Ex parte Dickey, supra, et al., the court pointed out the distinction in legislative power over a citizen using the public roads for ordinary travel, over one using them in a commercial capacity. The courts holding is: ?As to the former [the citizen using the road for common travel] the extent of legislative power is that of regulation; but, as to the latter [commercial use of the roads], its power is broader, the right may be wholly denied, or it may be permitted to some and denied to others.? We see that the legislature has the power to preclude or prevent those engaged in commercial activity from being on the public roads, but no such power is extended over the citizenry using it for ordinary travel. In this case the legislative power is limited to mere regulation.
And every Circuit has at one time or another upheld the right to travel by whatever means an individual decides is proper for him. Since the US Supreme Court has never granted cert to any of the appeals, that makes it Law Of The Land. The seminal Circuit case?
"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 insurance." Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22
"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with public interest and convenience. ibid at 206.
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." ibid at 221
Had enough?
Let's really tie it together, shall we?
It is commercial use that can and is licensed and regulated. All state laws, concerning vehicle registration and licensing of the driver are all based upon recognition of the states authority to regulate interstate commerce... And where applicable, the Congress in interstate commerce. In every single definition of the word "Person" in every states Motor Vehicle Statutes, it is defined as a commercial enterprise, even when the term "natural person" is used, as it is always used in connection with all other terms of commercial venture. The term "Person" or "Natural Person" is never defined in vehicle codes to denote a private citizen.
On August 20, 1926, the first version of the Uniform Vehicle Code (U.V.C.) was published by the U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. This was an attempt (by the D.O.T.) to set federal standards for the regulation of motor vehicles and drivers for interstate commerce. By examining the Statutes At Large, Volume 44, one finds the prior session (first) ran from December 7th, 1925 to July 3rd 1926, the last act of that session being approved July 13th. The next (second) session started December 6th 1926 and ran to March 4th 1927, with acts being enacted as early as December 8th. Since Congress was not in session to pass the U.V.C., and also, being that an examination of the table of laws of the first session does not reveal the U.V.C., it appears it was published under authority of the D.O.T. It is therefore strictly United States commercial law. Since that time it has been revised thirteen times. The states have adopted the U.V.C. into their statutes as a comparison between it and your State's regulation statutes will reveal, and as is claimed by the U.V.C. itself.
Further, every legal definition of "Driver" is a commercial definition. From Bouvier's (1856) to Black's (3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th editions). All Statutory usage conforms the these definitions.
What gives you the right to do most of what you do, on the road, is the Drivers License. Absolutely, if you pull over an unlicensed driver, you will more than likely haul him in. But if this driver has all his ducks in a row, the case will be dismissed before it ever reaches the court. And after a couple of times, you will find a harassment suit on you. This assumes the person you pulled (and keep pulling) over knows all of this and is willing to jump through all the hoops to reclaim his right to travel.
Most people don't know these things, and those of us that do are too chicken to go through with it.
It's a whole lot of hassle, plus it makes the local cops furious!
Did ya get this far Frank?
