Time: Wed Oct 30 20:25:03 1996
To: 
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Traveling is a right [2/7]
Cc: 
Bcc: liberty lists

<snip>
>--------- Begin forwarded message ----------
>From: autarchic
>To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org
>Subject: Traveling is a right [2/7]
>Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 10:19:52 EST
>Message-ID: <19961030.141739.4327.15.autarchic@juno.com>
>
> >>> Part 2 of 7...
>
>     or withhold at its discretion. . . . (Emphasis added).
>     See:
>          Hadfield, supra;
>          State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073;
>          Cummins v. Jones, 155 P. 171;
>          Packard v. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 257, 264 U.S. 140 and other
>          cases too numerous to mention.
>
>8.        The Washington State Supreme Court stated:
>
>     8.1       I am not particularly interested about the rights
>     of haulers by contract, or otherwise, but I am deeply
>     interested in the "RIGHTS" of the public to use the public
>     highways freely for all lawful purposes. (Emphasis added).
>     See:
>          Robertson v. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash. 133 at
>          139.
>
>9.        The Supreme Court of the State of Indiana ruled in 1873:
>
>     9.1       It is not the amount of travel, the extent of the
>     use of a highway by the public that distinguishes it from a
>     private way or road. It is the "RIGHT" to so use or travel
>     upon it, not its exercise. (Emphasis added).
>     See:
>          Ind 455, 461.
>
>10.       11 American Jurisprudence 1st, has this to say:
>
>     10.1      The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the
>     public highways and to transport his property thereon, by
>     horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is NOT a mere
>     PRIVILEGE which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but
>     a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under his right to life,
>     liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this
>     constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal
>     conditions, travel at his inclination along the public
>     highways or in public places, and while conducting himself
>     in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with,
>     not disturbing another's "RIGHTS," he will be protected, not
>     only in his person, but in his safe conduct. (Emphasis
>     added).
>     See:
>          11 American Jurisprudence 1st., Constitutional Law,  329,
>          page 1123.
>
>11.       The Supreme Court of the State of Georgia ruled:
>
>     11.1      In this connection it is well to keep in mind
>     that, while the public has an absolute "RIGHT" to the use of
>     the streets for their primary purpose, which is for travel,
>     the use of the streets from the purpose of parking
>     automobiles is a privilege, and not a "RIGHT"; and the
>     privilege must be accepted with such reasonable burdens as
>     the city may place as conditions to the exercise of the
>     privilege. (Emphasis added).
>     See:
>          Gardner v. City of Brunswick, 28 S.E. 2d 135.
>
>12.       The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado discussed
>
>the issue in the following way in 1961.
>
>     12.1      The Constitution of the State of Colorado, Article
>     II,  3 provides that: All persons have certain natural,
>     essential and unalienable "RIGHTS," among which may be
>     reckoned the "RIGHT" . . . of acquiring, possessing and
>     protecting property; . . . .
>
>     12.1.1    A motor vehicle is property and a person cannot be
>     deprived of property without due process of law. The term
>     property, within the meaning of the due process clause,
>     includes the "RIGHT" to make full use of the property which
>     one has the unalienable "RIGHT" to acquire.
>
>     12.1.2    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. (Emphasis added).
>     See:
>          People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210.
>
>13.       The Constitution of the State of Idaho contains the words:
>
>     13.1      All men are by nature free and equal, and have
>     certain unalienable "RIGHTS," among which are . . . ;
>     acquiring, possessing, and protecting property. . . .
>     (Emphasis added).
>
>14.       The words of the Idaho Constitution are to all intents and
>purposes identical with those of the North Carolina Constitution. The
>Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I,  1, states as
>follows:
>
>     14.1      The equality and rights of persons. We hold it to
>     be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that
>     they are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable
>     rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of
>     the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness.
>
>     14.2      To be that statutes which would deprive a citizen
>     of the rights of person or property without a regular trial,
>     according to the course and usage of common law, would not
>     be the law of the land.
>     See:
>          Hoke v. Henderson, 15 N.C. 15, 25 AM. Dec. 677.
>
>15.       Since courts tend to be consistent in their rulings, it
>would be expected the Idaho Supreme Court would rule in the same
>manner as the North Carolina Supreme Court.
>16.       Other authorities have arrived at similar conclusions:
>
>     16.1      The Constitution for the United States of America,
>Amendment 9:
>
>     16.1.1    The enumeration in the Constitution of certain
>     rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
>     retained by the people.
>
>17.       The Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I,
> 36:
>
>     17.1      Other rights of the people. The enumeration of
>     rights in this Article shall not be construed to impair or
>     deny others retained by the people.
>
>18.       I demand all of my other rights, including the right to
>travel upon the public highways and byways in the United States of
>America.
>19.       The Constitution of the State of North Carolina, Article I,
> 2:
>
>     19.1      Sovereignty of the people. All political power is
>     vested in and derived from the people; all government of
>     right originates from the people, is founded upon their will
>     only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.
>
>20.       As member of the Sovereignty of the people, I not only am
>entitled to use the highways and byways in the United States of
>America, I have an inalienable right to use the highways and byways.
>
>     20.1      Highways are public roads which every Citizen has
>     a "RIGHT" to use. (Emphasis added).
>     See:
>          3 Angel Highways 3.
>
>     20.2      A highway is a passage, road, or street, which
>     every Citizen has a "RIGHT" to use. (Emphasis added).
>     See:
>          Bouvier's Law Dictionary.
>
>21.       I have emphasized the word "RIGHT" because it is a common
>point among the authorities listed. The Idaho Code even joins in this
>common point:
>
>     21.1      49-301 (13) Street or highway.--The entire width
>     between property lines of every way or place of whatever
>     nature when any part thereof is open to the use of the
>     public, as a matter of "RIGHT," for purposes of vehicular
>     traffic. (emphasis added.)
>     See:
>          Idaho Code.
>
>22.       The United States Supreme Court has ruled that:
>
>     22.1      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
>     Fourteenth Amendment and by other provisions of the
>     Constitution. (Emphasis added).
>     See:
>          Williams v. Fears, 343 U.S. 270, 274.
>
>23.       Thus, there can be little doubt that, when this Sovereign
>travels upon the streets or highways in North Carolina, he does so as
>a matter of "RIGHT" and not privilege. The authority for such travel
>is described variously as a "RIGHT," a "COMMON RIGHT," an "ABSOLUTE
>RIGHT," an "UNALIENABLE RIGHT," and a "RIGHT" protected by the
>Constitution of the United States. Let us then examine the importance
>of these terms to this Sovereign by defining their meaning.
>
>     23.1      "RIGHT" -- In law, (a) an enforceable claim or
>     title to any subject matter whatever; (b) one's claim to
>     something out of possession; (c) a power, prerogative, or
>     privilege, as when the word is applied to a corporation.
>     See:
>          Webster Unabridged Dictionary.
>
>     23.2      "RIGHT" -- As relates to the person, "RIGHTS" are
>     absolute or relative; absolute "RIGHTS," such as every
>     individual born or living in this country (and not an alien
>     enemy) is constantly clothed with, and relate to his own
>     personal security of life, limbs, body, health, and
>     reputation; or to his personal liberty; "RIGHTS" which
>
> >>> Continued to next message...
>--------- End forwarded message ----------
>
>
      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail