RIGHT to TRAVEL
Here are my 2 quick thoughts on this...
1) The corner stone of a police state is the
restriction on free travel and registration of
the means to do so and the identification of those
who wish to.
2) What is freedom if one is not free to move from
point A to point B, UNREGISTERED and UNLICENSCED.
DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS, HIGHER
COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT
TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS
-- (By Jack McLamb from Aid & Abet Newsletter)
For years professionals within the criminal justice
system have acted on the belief that traveling by
motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a
citizen only after approval by their state government
in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other
words, the individual must be granted the privilege
before his use of the state highways was considered
Legislators, police officers, and court officials are
becoming aware that there are court decisions that
disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and
therefore requires government approval in the form of
a license. Presented here are some of these cases:
CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of
travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but
a common fundamental right of which the public and
individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago
Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
CASE #2: "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 or permit at will,
but a common law right which he has under the right to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson
v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more directly or conclusively
that citizens of the states have a common law right to
travel, without approval or restriction (license), and
that this right is protected under the U.S
CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty
of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due
process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v.
Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established
common right that does not owe its existence to the
federal government. It is recognized by the courts as
a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287,
225 F2d 938, at 941.
As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to
believe, there is no room for speculation in these
court decisions. American citizens do 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.
Government -- in requiring the people to obtain
drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections
and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is
restricting, and therefore violating, the people's
common law right to travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject?
Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and
opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those
in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been
in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state
that case law is overwhelming in determining that to
restrict the movement of the individual in the free
exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of
those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and
most state constitutions.
That means it is unlawful.
The revelation that the American citizen has always
had the inalienable right to travel raises profound
questions for those who are involved in making and
enforcing state laws.
The first of such questions may very well be this: If
the states have been enforcing laws that are
unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that
there must be some way that a state can legally put
restrictions -- such as licensing requirements,
mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle
inspections to name just a few -- on a citizen's
constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?
For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S.
courts for a determination of this very issue.
In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme
Court states very plainly: "The state cannot diminish
rights of the people." And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1
Baldw 60, "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious
principles of common right and common reason are null
Would we not say that these judicial decisions are
straight to the point-- that there is no lawful method
for government to put restrictions or limitations on
rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even
more straight forward:
"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and
reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name
of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are
involved, there can be no rule making or legislation
which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right
cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F
486, at 489.
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one
because of this exercise of constitutional rights."
Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.
We could go on, quoting court decision after court
decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our
question - Can a government legally put restrictions
on the rights of the American people at anytime, for
The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be
the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every
State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding." In the same Article, it says just
who within our government that is bound by this
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned,
and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and
all executive and judicial Officers, both of the
United States and of the several States, shall be
bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this
Constitution..." Here's an interesting question. Is
ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by
If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are
sworn to do), this places officials who involve
themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable
legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime
to violate or deprive citizens of their
constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law
dictates that there are only two ways to legally
remove a right belonging to the people.
These are (1) by lawfully amending the constitution,
or (2) by a person knowingly waiving a particular
Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen
because many millions of people have waived their
right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the
jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly
given up these rights are now legally regulated by
state law and must acquire the proper permits and
There are basically two groups of people in this
1) Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon
the highways of the state.
Here is what the courts have said about this:
"...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon
the public highways and to transport his property
thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the
highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter
purpose, no person has a vested right to use the
highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which
the (state) may grant or withhold at its
discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073.
There are many court cases that confirm and point out
the difference between the right of the citizen to
travel and a government privilege and there are
numerous other court decisions that spell out the
jurisdiction issue in these two distinctly different
activities. However, because of space restrictions, we
will leave it to officers to research it further for
(2) The second group of citizens that is legally under
the jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who
have voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to
travel unregulated and unrestricted by requesting
placement under such jurisdiction through the
acquisition of a state driver's license, vehicle
registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other
words, by contract.)
We should remember what makes this legal and not a
violation of the common law right to travel is that
they knowingly volunteer by contract to waive their
rights. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly
placed under the state's powers, the courts have said
it is a clear violation of their rights.
This in itself raises a very interesting question.
What percentage of the people in each state have
applied for and received licenses, registrations and
obtained insurance after erroneously being advised by
their government that it was mandatory?
Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are
just becoming informed about this important issue and
the difference between privileges and rights.
We can assume that the majority of those Americans
carrying state licenses and vehicle registrations have
no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws
such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly
states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect -laws that
are not laws at all.
An area of serious consideration for every police
officer is to understand that the most important law
in our land which he has taken an oath to protect,
defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or
county ordinances, but the law that supercedes all
other laws -- the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a
particular state or local community conflict with the
supreme law of our nation, there is no question that
the officer's duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
Every police officer should keep the following U.S.
--court ruling discussed earlier -- in mind before
--issuing citations concerning licensing, registration,
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right
cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F
486, 489. And as we have seen, traveling freely, going
about one's daily activities, is the exercise of a
most basic right.
And look up Certificate of Origination or Document of
Origination regarding registration of Automobiles and
Titling scams where the state converts your TRUE title
to the vehicle into basically a lein, and loans your
vehicle back to you and creates the legal ability to
tell you when to get out of THEIR car etc, or so this
is how it has been explained to me.
BTW, do you have any of the Certificates of Origin for
ANY of your vehicles ?
If not where is it, and what law allows it to be destroyed,
and if there is no such law, where are they kept ?
Interesting huh ?