Time: Thu Oct 31 07:13:10 1996
To:
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: LLAW: autarchic: Traveling is a right [6/7]
Cc:
Bcc: liberty lists
<snip>
>--------- Begin forwarded message ----------
>From: autarchic
>To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org
>Subject: Traveling is a right [6/7]
>Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 10:21:34 EST
>Message-ID: <19961030.141741.4327.19.autarchic@juno.com>
>
> >>> Part 6 of 7...
>
>State could make this Sovereign is the promise to allow him to travel
>on the streets or highways in North Carolina. Since this Sovereign
>already can do that as a matter of "RIGHT," the State can promise him
>nothing. Thus there is no consideration and a unilateral contract
>cannot exist.
>
>77. Having shown that no contract exists between this Sovereign
>and the State, let us examine the proposition that a quasi-contract
>exists between this Sovereign and the State.
>
>78. QUASI-CONTRACT
>
> 78.1 A quasi-contract is an obligation springing from
> voluntary and lawful acts of parties in the absence of any
> agreement.
> See:
> Bouvier's Law Dictionary.
>
>79. In order to establish the existence of a quasi-contractual
>obligation it must be shown:
>
> 79.1 That the defendant has received a benefit from the
> plaintiff.
>
> 79.2 That the retention of the benefit by the defendant
> is inequitable.
> See:
> Woodward Quasi Contracts 9.
>
>80. Thus, if it is contended that this Sovereign must obey the
>statutes in the North Carolina General Statutes because of a quasi-
>contract, it must be shown that this Sovereign has received a benefit
>from the State. But traveling on the streets or highways of the State
>is not a benefit received from the State. It was a "RIGHT" that
>attached to this Sovereign at the moment of his birth and cannot be
>removed by the State. In this respect, no benefit has been received
>from the State, and thus a quasi-contractual obligation cannot exist
>with respect to this Sovereign.
>
>81. It may be claimed that the statutes of the North Carolina
>General Statutes are made pursuant to the police powers of the State
>and that every person in the State is obligated to obey them.
>
>82. The police power is a grant of authority from the people to
>their governmental agents for the protection of the health, the
>safety, the comfort and the welfare of the public. In its nature it is
>broad and comprehensive. It is a necessary and salutary power, since
>without it, society would be at the mercy of individual interest and
>there would exist neither public order or security. While this is true
>it is only a power. It is not a "RIGHT?"
>
>83. The powers of government, under our system, are nowhere
>absolute. They are but grants of authority from the people, and are
>limited to their true purposes. The fundamental "RIGHTS" of the people
>are inherent and have not yielded to governmental control. They are
>not the subjects of governmental authority. They are subjects of
>individual authority. Constitutional powers can never transcend
>constitutional "RIGHTS." The police power is subject to the
>limitations imposed by the Constitution upon every power of
>government; and it will not be suffered to invade or impair the
>fundamental liberties of the Sovereign, those natural "RIGHTS" that
>are the chief concern of the Constitution and for whose protection it
>was ordained by the people.
>
> 83.1 To secure their property was one of the great ends
> for which men entered into society. The "RIGHT" to acquire
> and own property, and to deal with it and use it as the
> owner chooses, so long as the use harms nobody, is a natural
> "RIGHT." It does not owe its origin to constitutions. It
> existed before them. It is a part of the Citizen's natural
> liberty--an expression of his freedom, guaranteed as
> inviolate by every American Bill of "RIGHTS."
>
> 83.2 It is not a "RIGHT," therefore, over which the
> police power is paramount. Like every other fundamental
> liberty, it is a "RIGHT" to which the police power is
> subordinate.
>
> 83.3 It is a "RIGHT" which takes into account the equal
> "RIGHTS" of others, for it is qualified by the obligation
> that the use of the property shall not be to the prejudice
> of others. But if subject alone to that qualification the
> Citizen is not free to use his lands and his goods as he
> chooses, it is difficult to perceive wherein his "RIGHT" of
> property has any existence. (Emphasis added).
> See:
> Spann supra.
>
>84. Where inherent, unalienable, absolute "RIGHTS" are
>concerned, the police powers can have no effect. The "RIGHT" to travel
>on the streets or highways and the "RIGHT" to own and use property
>have been described as inherent, unalienable, and absolute. Thus the
>police power cannot regulate this Sovereign's "RIGHT" to use a vehicle
>on the streets or highways in North Carolina.
>
>85. If the police power of the State is permitted to regulate
>the traveling of this Sovereign on the streets or highways in North
>Carolina and if through the action of these regulations or statutes,
>this Sovereign is denied access to the streets or highways in North
>Carolina, a fundamental "RIGHT" of this Sovereign has been abrogated.
>
> 85.1 Where "RIGHTS" secured by the Constitution are
> involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that
> would abrogate them. (Emphasis added).
> See:
> Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966).
>
>86. The abrogation of unalienable "RIGHTS" by legislation or
>rule making is unconstitutional.
>
>87. If further proof is needed to show that this Sovereign need
>not be licensed to travel on the streets or highways in North
>Carolina, it is provided in the following decisions:
>
> 87.1 A license fee is a tax.
> See:
> Parish of Morehouse v. Brigham, 6 S. 257.
>
> 87.2 A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment
> of a "RIGHT" granted by the Federal Constitution. (Emphasis
> added).
> See:
> Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105.
>
>88. Since a fee is charged for a driver's license and since
>traveling on the streets or highways in North Carolina is a "RIGHT"
>guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and by the LAW OF NATURE, it
>is not constitutional for the State to require this Sovereign to be
>licensed to travel.
>
>89. Even the application for North Carolina Driver's License
>form recognizes the "RIGHT" of some persons to travel without a
>license. North Carolina General Statutes recognizes categories of
>persons who are not required to be licensed in this State. Why is it
>then that the first demand made by the law enforcement personnel when
>making a traffic stop is: "Let's see your driver's license,
>registration, and proof of insurance," and not always politely, when
>the first question should be; "What is your status and are you
>required to have a driver's license?"
>
>90. Can it be that there is a conspiracy afoot within the State
>to reduce all Sovereigns to a status of contract? Why else would a law
>enforcement person take a traveler to jail without even trying to
>discover if that person were exempt from the requirement of having a
>driver's license?
>
>91. The question now becomes whether this Sovereign is required
>to obey any of the statutes in the North Carolina General Statutes. It
>has been shown that this Sovereign has a "RIGHT" to travel on the
>streets or highways in North Carolina. So, any statute that describes
>driving on the streets or highways as a privilege cannot apply to this
>Sovereign. Since the "RIGHT" of this Sovereign to travel cannot be
>abrogated, any statute the operation of which would have the effect of
>denying access to the streets or highways to this Sovereign cannot
>apply to this Sovereign.
>
>92. Since violation of any statue in the North Carolina General
>Statutes is classified as a misdemeanor that is punishable by a fine
>and six months in jail, and since putting this Sovereign in jail
>because of his use of the streets or highways that harms nobody would
>be an abrogation of his "RIGHT" to travel, none of the statutes of The
>North Carolina General Statutes apply to this Sovereign. These
>contentions are supported by the Supreme Court of United States.
>
> 92.1 An Iowa statute that requires that every foreign
> corporation named in it shall as a condition for obtaining a
> permit to transact business in Iowa, stipulate that it will
> not remove into the federal court certain suits that it
> would by the laws of the United States have a "RIGHT" to
> remove, is void because it makes the "RIGHT" to a permit
> dependent upon the surrender by the foreign corporation of a
> privilege secured to it by the constitution and laws of the
> United States. (Emphasis added).
> See:
> Bouvier's Law Dictionary quoting Barron v.
> Burnside, 121 U.S. 186.
>
>93. This decision is consistent with that in Miranda, supra in
>which it was stated that where "RIGHTS" are concerned, there can be no
>rule making or legislation that would abrogate them. It is also
>consistent with the discussion in the following case. This case is a
>tax case but the discussion on "RIGHTS" that it contains is
>appropriate.
>
>94. INDIVIDUAL AND A CORPORATION
>
> 94.1 There is a clear distinction in this particular
> between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter
> has no "RIGHT" to refuse to submit its books and papers for
> an examination at the suit of the State. The individual may
> stand upon his constitutional "RIGHTS" as a Citizen. He is
> entitled to carry on his private business in his own way.
> His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the
> State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to
> open his doors to an investigation so far as it may tend to
> criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he
> receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his
> life and property. His "RIGHTS" are such as existed by the
> law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the
> State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law,
> and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his "RIGHTS"
> are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of
> himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under
> a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long
> as he does not trespass upon their "RIGHTS." (Emphasis
> added.)
> See:
>
> >>> Continued to next message...
>--------- End forwarded message ----------
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail