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