Profile image
By Christopher Watson
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

Proof U.S. Supreme Court Says You Don’t Need a License to Drive in the United States!

Tuesday, May 16, 2017 14:39
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS

“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”

Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –

Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”

Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”

Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”

Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”

Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”

Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”

House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.

Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”

Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;

Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”

-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”

-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”

-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 “Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled” – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 ”

The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.”

Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). “…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;

Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”

Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 “the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.” –

Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.”

Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 “The word ‘operator’ shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation.”

Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.”

City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.”

Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”

Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” –

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. “The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.”

(Paul v. Virginia). “[T]he right to travel freely from State to State … is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” (U.S. Supreme Court,

Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. …’Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove 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 Constitution.’

Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197.

Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.”

Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”

Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a “statute.” A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.

Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the streets with horses and carriages.

Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29. …automobiles are lawful vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.

Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen.

Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246;

Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. “A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his ‘household goods[.]’

U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235” 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. “[I]t is a jury question whether … an automobile … is a motor vehicle[.]”

United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to use an automobile cases: –

EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 –

TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 – WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 – CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 – THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 – U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) –

GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) – CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 –

SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) – CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.


Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Total 20 comments
  • Black Humor

    What about the liability of people using their right… Whom cant drive sh*t? Should their internal organs be stripped to compensate damages? I can understand aplication of these precedents when a person has lost his/her driving license, but for a person takeing a truck to public road with 3 minutes experience and vague understanding of commonly accepted traffic ”procedures” sounds like a recipe to disaster. :roll:

    • BillyP

      Shut the F$ck Up. Zio-fag.

    • barebones

      Firstly, the automobile is insured not the operator. Whether a licensed operator of record is required for coverage is the option of the insurance company. They usually need a license to identify the primary operator of the vehicle to establish the insurance premium. A legal request for license presentation is only necessary, if a vehicle is being operated for business or profit.

      Both licensed and unlicensed operators are subject to obeying traffic laws and rules and may be prosecuted for violations.

      • dusel1

        Liability insurance covers the driver(s).
        Collision and comprehensive insurance covers the automobile.

        • barebones

          Auto liability insurance reimburses injured parties for damages to persons and property.

          • Mike

            So we should make insurance mandatory? Socialism runs deep in America!

  • barebones

    Before anyone tries to use these decisions as a defense,it would be wise to investigate the circumstances under which they are operating a motor vehicle. For instance, Black’s Law dictionary is considered the authority for legal argot. It describes a “driver” as one who operates to conduct business and needs a license. If one operates for their own interests, then a license may not be required. Local laws, though possibly unconstitutional, may not accept Black’s definition

    If you sign a document admitting to be a “driver”, like a ticket charging “driving without a license” well, good luck. If you are appearing Pro Se, expect to lose. Courts don’t accept deviations from their sense of “normal” and will find you guilty all the while knowing that you’re innocent!

    In short, you’ll need to pay, pay, pay for a lawyer. It’s the Law!!!!

  • Sue Rosenorn

    So what I am getting from this article is that a person can also walk or use a non motorized bicycle on highways. Why are there signs sometimes posted on entry ramps prohibiting this? In Illinois you would defintely be arrested for drving without a license.

    • barebones

      Dear Sue,

      You’ve missed the entire point of the article. The idea is that the law distinguishes between a casual operator and a “driver”.

      If a casual operator operates a vehicle (horsecart, auto, semi, etc.) for personal, non-compensated travel then a license is not required.

      Were any operator to operate and have benefited through a form of compensation because of such operation, then legally the operator becomes a “driver” and by law would require a license.

    • barebones

      I give up!!

  • Pink Slime

    There you go! Normal necessity of life needs no overreach, boot on your neck, regulated bureaucracy, taxed to death law from the control-freaks, communist liberals, self-important asses and radical leftist up there.

    The same thing must be applied to your right to SELF-DEFENSE to carry any weapon you please in the same vein of which they have no authority too.

    The only thing government is SUPPOSE to do with self-defense APPLIES to the COUNTRY as a well-regulated, bearing arms MILITIA to be necessary to the SECURITY of a FREE STATE.

    However, they never push this on you like they are suppose to and for good reason. THEY FEAR THE PEOPLE!!! Which is how it is suppose to be! :lol:

    Well, LET’S DO IT!! :twisted:

  • dennis48309

    What kind of morons think they have the right to drive a multi-thousand pound death machine down the road? Driving is dangerous, hence why it is a privilege not a right. If you are a drunk driver, can’t see well, or are susceptible to seizures you have no business on the road. Do you also think those roads that you drive down magically pay for themselves?

  • Undumbified

    Not only are you naysayers not ‘drivers’ but not even likely to be ‘US citizens’ (US corporate employees). You get treated as both because you sign legal papers without knowing what the hell you’re doing. You falsely told the DMV you were a ‘US citizen’ on their form. As you do on 1040s every April. Then you get online and lecture the rest of us how we’re going to be arrested if we don’t obey. You just have egotistical cogdiss and don’t want to believe you’ve been hoodwinked all your life. Suckas.

    Youtubes galore teach you these matters and even show cop interactions. If you’ve never hauled cargo for pay, or taken passengers for pay, then you’ve never been a driver in your life — and NEVER needed a license. The city cabbie who takes you to the airport has a license exactly like yours, and uses it in commerce. That’s the supposed purpose of a driver’s license. Limo drivers and truck drivers are the only people who need one. When you travel freely (not ‘drive’) you simply assume full liability for your actions.

    Licensing is a bit of a joke anyway. They only test you every 7 or 10 years and most of that time you don’t even take the written exam, you just hand in your old card for an updated photo. They let octogenarians on the road, people. They also hand out DLs to illegal aliens in California.

    You need to understand these cards are more about people tracking and presumed consent to US corporate policy enforced by policy enforcement aka ‘police’ upon corporate employees aka ‘US citizens’ and ‘dirvers.’ The PTB do not promote them because they care about your safety, which they violate every day with the heavy metal chemtrails they spray on your dumb heads.

    Watch these youtubes: cV8gRA-JYeg BQFpKkIFKP4

    And learn from Anna von Reitz and others. She has some choice warning words about the right to travel.

  • Anonymous

    If you go this route, nothing can be tied to the state, or a business interest…

    TOTALLY NUDE DRIVING = NO DRIVERS’ LICENSE, NO REGISTRATION, NO LICENSE PLATE, these are connected to the State…

    NO INSURANCE, there is the business interest / connected to the State…

    BETTER TO OWN YOUR CAR OUTRIGHT, THEN IT IS PRIVATE PROPERTY, OTHERWISE IF YOU HAVE SOME KIND OF DEBT ON IT = A BUSINESS INTEREST, BE IT A BANK LOAN, OR SOME KIND OF OTHER PAPERWORK = CONNECTED TO THE STATE…

    Check out YOUTUBE = there are a lot of good videos explaining all of this ILLEGAL criminal enterprise bullshit

  • desertspeaks

    that’s an awful lot to remember, and judges deplore these decisions because it cuts into the states corporate profits!

    it would be better to challenge a prosecutor’s lack of evidence and a witness with personal firsthand knowledge, that the constitution “along with all subsequent, laws, statutes, codes, policies, edicts, etc” applies to anyone just because they are physically within a particular geographic area..
    Fyi; no such evidence exists that any of it applies to anyone, anywhere, ever! Sure you believe it applies, the government wonks believe it all applies.. but NO ONE CAN PROVE IT APPLIES!

    Educate yourselves.. you can learn how you’ve been lied to your entire lives.. marc stevens has a website whose members challenge the prosecutor and these challenges are winning more and more often BECAUSE NO SUCH EVIDENCE EXISTS OF APPLICABILITY!
    ITS ALL FRAUD FOLKS!

  • Air Quotes Shill Air Quotes

    Good just what I want.

    A bunch of fag idiots that cannot read and dont know there left from their right driving.

    Even if you could drive without one, you really want untrained uneducated idiots doing it?

    My son is 11.

    He can reach the gas pedals.

    Should I have him drive around?

    He has no idea what the fuck hes doing, but its his legal right as an american right?

    • Anonymous

      Does your 11 year old expect to have the right to bear arms? He COULD shoot wildly and kill someone unless YOU train him on how to use a firearm. But no matter what AGE he is, he DOES have the right to bear arms because he was BORN in the USA!

      Your argument is foolish. When he is old enough to be responsible driving, he can exercise his right. But it’s up to YOU to make sure he knows how to drive, not the state. Does the state require firearm training before he can exercise his 2nd Amendment rights? NOPE. again it’s up to YOU to train him.

  • Anonymous

    Unfortunately, when it comes to winning in court, 99.9% of citizens give up and never get a ruling on these issues. It’s expensive to fight strong-arm state and local governments that protect their fiefdoms. And federal judges these days are all statists, so don’t expect to win on these grounds. These kind of legal thinkers are pretty much gone.

  • Andy

    since when does govt give a flying fk about the law? the constitution? or the bill of rights?

    govt cares only for itself, it has gone rogue and needs to be put down (applies globally)

Top Stories
Recent Stories
 

Featured

 

Top Global

 

Top Alternative

 

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.