Right to travel "unrestricted" upon the roadways.

[Vern_in_IL]

Originally Posted By: surfstar


HEY VERN!


See, what happened here was, good 'ol Vern was readin' through some libertarian site and someone spouted off on not needing insurance, registration, etc costs when owning and operating a vehicle - saying it was unconstitutional. So he thought, "Hey, that sounds great! Constitution, and all that jazz - yeah! Freedom" and a final "'murika"

So, HEY VERN - good luck with that. Tell the gas station attendant that you don't want to pay the federal, state and local taxes on your gas, either, b/c that would be a restriction on your right to travel.


First off, the Gas station attendant is not "sworn to protect the Constitution".

Police officers ARE.

He has taken an oath to protect, defend, AND ENFORCE, is not state laws, nor city or county ordinances, but, that law that supersede all other laws in our nation, - the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular police officer's state, or local community are in conflict with the SUPREME LAW of our nation, there Is no question that the officer's duty is to "uphold the U.S. Constitution."

The officer is duty bound to uphold his oath of office. The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment.

 

[Vern_in_IL]

Originally Posted By: Benito
Interesting. I saw a documentary about this once.

Isn't the basic premise of these people that they don't agree with the govt's policies?


Originally Posted By: bubbatime
Lots of these guys tick off cops and judges and they miraculously find themselves sitting in jails for months at a time.

And it sounds like this is a violation of the 6th and maybe 5th amendment?


The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution.

Quote:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.


Police officers, are a part of the Executive branch. Every U.S. Police officer knows that they have sworn a oath to the people of our nation that we will not only protect their lives and property, but, that we will uphold, and protect their freedoms and rights under the Supreme laws of this nation.

I've read six court decisions on this, and my understanding is this:

It could not be stated more clearly that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution as a "most basic right".

Our system of law dictates the fact that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are by lawfully amending the constitution, or a person knowingly waiving a particular right.(license)

 

[Benito]

You should get support from the 2nd Amendment absolutists on this.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: Vern_in_IL

It could not be stated more clearly that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution as a "most basic right".


So are these Moorish Nationalists all aflutter about anti-hitchhiking laws? It's the essence of free travel and using one's thumb is a first amendment-protected form of free speech.

 

[bubbatime]

Originally Posted By: Benito
Interesting. I saw a documentary about this once.

Isn't the basic premise of these people that they don't agree with the govt's policies?


Originally Posted By: bubbatime
Lots of these guys tick off cops and judges and they miraculously find themselves sitting in jails for months at a time.

And it sounds like this is a violation of the 6th and maybe 5th amendment?


Or that maybe they are just a bunch of broke idiots and can't afford or just flat out refuse to pay their bail.

 

[Benito]

Bail is one thing. The right to a speedy trial is another, and a constitutional right.

You suggested some are in jail for months because they annoyed the cops.

 

[hattaresguy]

You do have the right to travel, you do not have the right to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. Driving on public roads is not a right. If you want to go further back in time before cars a lot of roads were toll and privately owned, you had to pay to travel on them. You do have the right to operate a motor vehicle on private land in most areas with no license.

Flying a Boeing 747 is also a form of travel. Do you have the "right" to walk right aboard and travel? How about fly it?

The problem with these Constitutionalists is that they usually are not that bright.

This is a perfect example, confusing travel and form of travel. I think they just don't or can't pay their bills and try to justify it.

 

[surfstar]

Originally Posted By: Al
The black helicopters are circling.


worse, they're black UFOs

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: Vern_in_IL


I've read six court decisions on this, and my understanding is this:

It could not be stated more clearly that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution as a "most basic right".

Our system of law dictates the fact that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are by lawfully amending the constitution, or a person knowingly waiving a particular right.(license)


Its not logical thinking. An auto is a specialized mode of transportation. How far do you want to take it. Do aircraft pilots need a license?

 

[Nate1979]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
You do have the right to travel, you do not have the right to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. Driving on public roads is not a right. If you want to go further back in time before cars a lot of roads were toll and privately owned, you had to pay to travel on them. You do have the right to operate a motor vehicle on private land in most areas with no license.

Flying a Boeing 747 is also a form of travel. Do you have the "right" to walk right aboard and travel? How about fly it?

The problem with these Constitutionalists is that they usually are not that bright.

This is a perfect example, confusing travel and form of travel. I think they just don't or can't pay their bills and try to justify it.


+1 As well it seems their comprehension is at a Kindergarten level.

 

[Benito]

They also fail to realize that authority was granted in The Constitution to the Supreme Court to be the final interpreter of, wait for it, The Constitution.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted By: Vern_in_IL
Originally Posted By: wallyuwl
Without a "drivers license" you can't drive. You can still use public transportation or travel as a passenger in someone else's vehicle.


From what I've read, citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction, and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. A drivers license will put you legally under the jurisdiction of the State. Requireing vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. by "contract only".

Just trying to understand this.


You can walk or ride a horse. You don't have a 'right to drive'.

 

[Bandito440]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: Vern_in_IL

It could not be stated more clearly that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution as a "most basic right".


So are these Moorish Nationalists all aflutter about anti-hitchhiking laws? It's the essence of free travel and using one's thumb is a first amendment-protected form of free speech.

No, they aren't. The unlicensed/uninsured/uninspected nonsense is just the product of an entitled attitude by selfish people.

Vern,

Nobody's stopping you from traveling. If you want to play sovereign citizen, be prepared to accept responsibility for the outcome.

Furthermore, state and local police are not members of any branch of the federal government. Federal law enforcement officers are members of the Executive Branch. You don't get to interpret the Constitution as you see fit in order to fulfill some desire to act like a child. Neither do YouTube nutcases. The Supreme Court is tasked with that.

The Supreme Court has not determined that you can drive in that manner. If you want to go that route, you'll get ticketed, then arrested, fined, jailed, etc. You can then tell the judge that you read on the internet that he can't infringe upon your right to travel. He'll explain that you're welcome to travel anywhere, but driving has certain requirements that go along with the privilege. If you're still not satisfied, you can turn in a bunch of cryptic hand-written legal documents that don't mean anything to anyone except your fellow internet rabble rousers. If you don't want it to end there, you can attack the judge and police officers personally by putting leins on their property. This will likely result in more fines and jail time.

My suggestion would be to spend less time watching YouTube videos and more time doing something constructive. Gardening, for instance.

 

[splinter]

Originally Posted By: mongo161
As of today...Each State is required to enforce documenting the legal residence of each citizen.
In order to obtain a State-issued ID or DL you must present official documents showing that you are a US citizen,(OR in The USA Legally and accounted for)...
[emphasis added]

Not in California. Illegal aliens ('undocumented residents' in PC-speak) have been receiving official driver licenses in droves.
Our so-called Department of Homeland Security has been ordered to stand down by the Executive Branch.

http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2015/04/07/3643779/ca-drivers-license/

 

[Lawn_Care]

We have (well, had) one of these guys in a small town about 10-miles from me. Went the whole 'Soverign' route, no plates, insurance, made his name a Registered Trademark, etc.

Failed to recognize the tickets, fines, and voilations he received over the course of about 3-years, so on and so forth.



He's now doing 7-10 years (for a great many 'failure to' charges among other things, and has plenty of time to think about the situation as a whole.

As the Judge (who I go to Lodge with) explained to him, 'In the state of Missouri - Driving is a privilege, not a right.' Final Answer, Case Closed.


Like Vern, he didn't recoginze the Court's authority. I bet he does now. lol

 

[whip]

I wish Antiqueshell was around to shed some light on this. It sounds like something he'd be very knowledgeable about.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: whip
I wish Antiqueshell was around to shed some light on this. It sounds like something he'd be very knowledgeable about.

Delusion, paranoia, and irrationality?

 

[Benito]

Give me a ........... break.

 

[Pop_Rivit]

Originally Posted By: whip
I wish Antiqueshell was around to shed some light on this. It sounds like something he'd be very knowledgeable about.


I don't think he's around any longer. Rumor has it that a bigfoot captured him, took him back to the bigfeet colony where they are currently carrying out unspeakable experiments on him.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: Benito
They also fail to realize that authority was granted in The Constitution to the Supreme Court to be the final interpreter of, wait for it, The Constitution.


No, the court took that power in Marbury vs. Madison.