Re: Leaving MONTANA for freedom in New Hampshire?

[RidleyReport]

the supreme court is that bunch who said the government can take your land for the purpose of selling it to a private convention center. Their rulings are not super respected around here.

[LumpyRevolution]

That is precisely why I'm moving to New Hampshire ASAP!

Thank you for reminding me Dave!

[fczwartek]

Tell me if I've got this straight then; Libertarians can cite Supreme Court cases when the appear to support the Libertarian agenda.

But as soon as the "appearance of support" crumbles away Libertarians simply dismiss the Supreme Court as another corrupt gvmnt institution.

Although I agree with you the using public domain to transfer private land to richer private hands is definitely wrong.

[RidleyReport]

different libertarians have different thoughts on these matters. To me, the courts don't have much credibility. But government workers are expected to take them seriously, and often don't. That's hypocritical on their part.

[LordBicen]

Live free... OR DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[fczwartek]

Find a supreme court case or act of congress that specifically says it is unconstitutional for states to require car drivers to be licensed.

I'm not talking about restricting travel to other countries by denying a passport due to political affiliation (Kent v Dulles.)

[fczwartek]

Why not just go and get a license? I just don't get it. 40,000+ car crash related deaths every year....

I'm not saying you're a bad driver Rich but apparently you lack good judgment because you are going to go to jail over this.

How is it worth it? What are you trying to prove or gain?

[burnthebeautiful]

It's not about how easy it is to get a license, it's the principle of the thing - namely that you shouldn't need government permission to do things. Imagine if the government started demanding that you have a license to be allowed to walk on the street, or mow your own lawn. Even if the street-walking license or the lawn-mowing license were easy to get, you might be opposed to it just out of principle, you'd feel you shouldn't need a license. That's how I imagine rich feels about driving.

[fczwartek]

Right because the government is just a step away from asking you to register to cross the street or mow your law?

[LumpyRevolution]

Traveling is a Right secured by the 14th amendment & by other provisions of the Constitution.

For many years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state govt in the form of a permit or license.

[LumpyRevolution]

Legislators, police officers & court officials are being made aware that there are court decisions disproving the opinion that traveling is a privilege that requires govt approval.

"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 22.

[LumpyRevolution]

("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement: stop lights, signs, etc.)

"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 at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 179.

[LumpyRevolution]

"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move 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 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293.

[LumpyRevolution]

I'll bet you wonder how he can do it 100% legally. Don't you? Well, I won't keep you in suspense; he's a sovereign individual. What are you? A slave? Please take that as sarcasm but in a good way. I mean no disrespect, I only men to help enlighten if I you are willing to tolerate someone else who knows that not having a government license is not only a very good thing, but very legal as well.

[fczwartek]

If everyone does what they want when they want how is that enlightenment? How is that anything other than anarchy?

Where in the constitution does it say you have the right to drive a car? Is it a "human right" just because you say it is?

[LumpyRevolution]

Well, first of all "anarchy" is preferable to me over what we currently have so I'm not totally free of bias. Secondly, let me as you where in the constitution that the government can infringe on your natural right to travel? Why do YOU have to ask the GOVERNMENT for permission to travel? Myself, I really don't want to ask permission. I'm a sovereign individual too. The Federal Constitution exists to protect you and I from that kind of tyrannical behavior. Your choice. =)

[LumpyRevolution]

It could not be stated more conclusively that citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restrictions (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

[LumpyRevolution]

As hard as it is for those in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does 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.

[LumpyRevolution]

Government, in requiring the people to file for drivers license, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, roadblocks, etc. are restricting and therefore violating the peoples' common law right to travel.

[LumpyRevolution]

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. The American Citizens and Lawmen Association, in conjunction with the U.S. Federal Law Research Center are presently involved in studies in several areas involving questions on constitutional law. One of the many areas under review is that of the citizen's right to travel. A spokesman stated in an interview:

[LumpyRevolution]

"Upon researching this subject over many months, substantial case law has presented itself that completely substantiates the position that the 'right to travel unrestricted upon the nations highways' is and always has been a fundamental right of every Citizen."

[LumpyRevolution]

This means that the beliefs and opinions of our state legislators, the courts, and those of us involved in the law enforcement profession have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that U.S. case law is overwhelming. To restrict in any fashion the movement of the individual American, in free exercise of the right to travel upon the roadways (excluding commerce, which the state legislatures are correct in regulating)...

[LumpyRevolution]

, is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution, as well as most state constitutions.

Our system of law dictates that there is only one way to remove a right belonging to the people. That is by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.

[LumpyRevolution]

Some of the confusion in our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted, and opted into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are legally regulated by state law, and must obtain permits, registrations, insurance, etc.

[LumpyRevolution]

Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling in mind before issuing citations:

"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S., F.2d 486, 489.

[LumpyRevolution]

This info comes from a special edition of "Aid and Abet" bulletin #11, P.O. Box 8787, Phoenix, AZ. 85066, by Officer Jack McLamb.

It is important to be aware of a different point of view about traffic since a near police state exists on America's highways today. Traffic Support Services' goal is to reestablish the RIGHT to travel.

So do you see a little differently now?

[fczwartek]

No one is restricting the right to travel. Anyone can walk, bike, carpool, ride a bus, call a taxi, bum a ride or whatever (ok hitchhiking is illegal in many places...maybe it shouldn't be.)

I don't want people who are unqualified to be driving. Just as a matter of common sense and safety. Should someone who is blind be allowed to drive? Should a 10 year old kid be allowed to drive?

I supposed speed limits and stop lights also "restrict" your right to travel too?

[LumpyRevolution]

Dude, READ what I wrote before you start blabbering on about the answer. READ what I wrote!

You can keep passing laws all day long and nipping and tucking and growing "enforcement"... dude,m if you understood wht the system was about... you know what? I'm thinking you are an ignorant troll. I've had a long day. Time for me to ignore you now. Go read the Federalist Papers will you?

[fczwartek]

Dude, I did read what "you" wrote and I did enough research on it to know that you didn't write it. It's a lousy cut and paste job.

Let's talk about Kent v Dulles (for example.) This case has nothing to do with driving a car. Nothing. Let me repeat that for clarity- Nothing!

The case is about the government denying Kent a passport to travel to England because he was an alleged communist.

I am talking about driving. You are talking about traveling.

[LumpyRevolution]

I've read your other comments; I still think there's hope for you in spite of what you wrote. Of course that was cut & paste. What of it? It doesn't make it any less important did it? No, you didn't say squat about "international travel" so don't expect me to read your mind on your imaginary items please; thank you. Do you suspect Kent v Dulles was only a problem because he claimed Federal Citizenship therefore giving up natural rights inherent to living souls only or am I over your head again?

[LumpyRevolution]

Traveling IS driving just as much as if you were on a bicycle, covered wagon, moped, train, taxi, the back of an ass, or what have you... is it not? Jeesh! It seems like you want to argue for the sake of arguing. I'd rather not do that. Life is too short for that amigo.

[TEBON]

I read what you wrote to an 8 year old and they think you whine too much.

[fczwartek]

I read what you wrote to a 4 year old and they think you are retarded. Kids!

[RidleyReport]

the constitution does not grant rights to the citizen, it limits the rights of the government.

[fczwartek]

Limiting the power of government is the corollary of granting rights to the citizen.

[RidleyReport]

he's trying to prove that you advocate initiated violence.

[rataMacue22]

OMG! An unlicensed driver!!! Quick, call the SWAT Teams!!! He must be tased immediately!

(sarcasm, of course)