

                     DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS,

                   HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS

                    HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS

                                   By Jack McLamb
                            (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)

           For years professionals within the criminal justice system have
      acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that
      was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in
      the form of a permit or license to drive.

           In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before
      his use of the state highways was considered legal.

           Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware
      that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a
      privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a
      license. Presented here are some of these cases:

           CASE #1: "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." Chicago
      Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

           CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public
      highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by
      automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit
      at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life,
      liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

           It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens
      of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or
      restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S
      Constitution.

           CASE #3: "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." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

           CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right
      that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recog-
      nized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC
      287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

           As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe,
      there is no room for speculation in these court decisions.

           American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the
      roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or
      violating property or rights of others.

           Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses,
      and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question
      -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right
      to travel.


                                     Page 1 of 4


           Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not.

           This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the
      courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been
      in error.

           Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is over-
      whelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual
      in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those
      freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions.

           That means it is unlawful.

           The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalien-
      able right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved
      in making and enforcing state laws.

           The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states
      have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it
      would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put
      restrictions -- such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance,
      vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few -- on a
      citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?

           For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a
      determination of this very issue.

           In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states
      very plainly: "The state cannot diminish rights of the people."

           And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, "Statutes that violate the
      plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null
      and void."

           Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the
      point -- that there is no lawful method for government to put restric-
      tions or limitations on rights belonging to the people?

           Other cases are even more straight forward:

           "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made,
      is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v.
      Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24

           "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be
      no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v.
      Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

           "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be con-
      verted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

           There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this
      exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946

           We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision;
      however, the Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government


                                     Page 2 of 4


      legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime,
      for any reason?

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

           "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
      made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and
      the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
      Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word
      withstanding."

           In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is
      bound by this Supreme Law:

           "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..."

           Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an
      excuse for such acts by officials?

           If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do),
      this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an
      unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to
      violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights.

           Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally
      remove a right belonging to the people.

           These are (1) by lawfully amending the constitution, or (2) by a
      person knowingly waiving a particular right.

           Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many
      millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and
      volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state.

           Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally
      regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and
      registrations.

            There are basically two groups of people in this category:

           (1) Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of
      the state.

           Here is what the courts have said about this: "...For while a
      citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport
      his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the
      highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no
      person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a
      privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..."
      State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073.

           There are many court cases that confirm and point out the difference
      between the right of the citizen to travel and a government privilege and
      there are numerous other court decisions that spell out the jurisdiction
      issue in these two distinctly different activities.


                                     Page 3 of 4


           However, because of space restrictions, we will leave it to officers
      to research it further for themselves.

           (2) The second group of citizens that is legally under the
      jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who have voluntarily and
      knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and unrestricted by
      requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a
      state driver's license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc.
      (In other words, by contract.)

           We should remember what makes this legal and not a violation of the
      common law right to travel is that they knowingly volunteer by contract
      to waive their rights. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly
      placed under the state's powers, the courts have said it is a clear
      violation of their rights.

           This in itself raises a very interesting question.

           What percentage of the people in each state have applied for and
      received licenses, registrations and obtained insurance after erroneously
      being advised by their government that it was mandatory?

           Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming
      informed about this important issue and the difference between privileges
      and rights.

           We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state
      licenses and vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they
      waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly
      states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect - laws that are not laws at
      all.

           An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to
      understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an
      oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or
      county ordinances, but the law that supercedes all other laws -- the U.S.
      Constitution.

           If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the
      supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer's duty
      is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

           Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling --
      discussed earlier -- in mind before issuing citations concerning
      licensing, registration, and insurance:

           "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be
      converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.

           And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one's daily
      activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.


                                     Page 4 of 4
------------------------------------------------
(This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the
Patriot FTP site by S.P.I.R.A.L., the Society for the Protection of Individual Rights and Liberties. E-mail alex@spiral.org)
