Time: Thu Oct 31 10:04:58 1996 To: Christianus Dei Gratia <scrc@cogent.net> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Right to Travel Cc: Bcc: Liberty Law At 08:47 AM 10/31/96 -0800, you wrote: >The following is My firm belief on the current state of the >"Right to Travel" issue. > >"Within the meaning of 'a right to travel', means >migration with intent to settle and abide." >Strong v. Collatos, D.C. Mass., 450 F. Supp.1356,1360. This is not an exclusive definition, but a clarification, to wit: "a right to travel" embraces "migration with intent to settle and abide", but is by no means limited to same. > >"Migrans jura amittat ac privlegia et immunitates >domicilii prioris, or, One who migrates or emigrates >will lose the rights, privileges, and immunities of his >former domicile." >Maxims of Law, Black's 6th, page 992 This is a restatement of the Privileges and Immunities Clause in the organic Constitution. See Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1. > >"Basic constitutional right exemplified in case of >persons applying for welfare assistance is a state >in which they have not resided for a prescribed period >of time. It is said that to deny such a right to such >persons is to inhibit their right to travel and hence to >deny them equal protection of the law." >Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322 This equal protection is probably the one mentioned in the so-called 14th amendment [sic]. > >"The sovereign authority can extend only over those >who are subject to it, it cannot, therefore, regulate the >rights of foreigners. But if they come within its territory, >either to reside or travel, they are considered as >submitting themselves to the authoirty of the laws of >the country, and they are bound by them. This is >perfectly reasonable, for during their stay in the country >they are protected by its laws." >1 Bouvier's Inst. of Law (1851) p.38 For example, they are protected by the California Civil Code which says that the common law is the rule of decision in that Republic. > >"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a >state of declared national emergency... Under the powers >delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize >property...organize and control the means of production; >seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute >martial law; seize and control all transportation and >communications; regulate the operation of private >enterprize; RESTRICT TRAVEL; and, in a plethora >of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens." >Preamble from Senate Report 93-549, 93rd Congress, 11/19/73 >Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency, >United States Senate. "Imagine, for a moment, that I am a Senator. "Then, imagine if you will, that I am an idiot." "But, alas, I repeat myself, again, and again." Paul Mitchell imitating Samuel Clemens > >I believe there is an alternative, but I've not seen it within >the remarks that have been written thus far in this thread. > >Robert Happy Time to unravel it then, Robert. Gofer it!! ("fer" means "to carry" in Latin). >---------------------------------------------------- >Christianus Dei Gratia >Sanctuary Christian Resource Center >scrc@cogent.net >Web Site = www.cogent.net/scrc > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail