Right to travel on public roads. A right or privilege ?

[Hairyplotter]

I am of the belief that the use of public roads for the purpose of conducting ones daily activities is a right and not a privilege. I have several citations which clearly state that the right to travel is a fundamental right the government cannot abrogate.

Before I consider raising challenges to the laws requiring licensing of drivers, and registration of vehicles, I want to be sure that I am on valid legal footing. I would appreciate any answers to include court citations so that I may do independent research in to the issue.

 

[CdwJava]

I am of the belief that the use of public roads for the purpose of conducting ones daily activities is a right and not a privilege. I have several citations which clearly state that the right to travel is a fundamental right the government cannot abrogate.

Before I consider raising challenges to the laws requiring licensing of drivers, and registration of vehicles, I want to be sure that I am on valid legal footing. I would appreciate any answers to include court citations so that I may do independent research in to the issue.

The courts have ruled time and time again that the right to operate a motor vehicle on a public roadway is a privilege and NOT a right. Most the cases that indicate otherwise are 50-75+ years old and are not controlling case law.

You are free to believe whatever you wish. But, do not expect for a moment that the state will concede your position when the courts have consistently ruled against it.

- Carl

 

[Hairyplotter]

I have done quite a bit of searching, and have yet to find a case where it was ruled that driving an automobile on public roadways for non-commercial use was a privilege that could be revoked at the states leisure.
I would greatly appreciate links to cases that you mentioned in your post.
I am looking at this from a constitutional standpoint. If I am legally able to own an automobile, having the state deny me the intended use of the automobile effectively deprives me of property without due process.
While I understand and agree that the state does have the obligation to ensure the safety of its citizens and thus regulate certain activities, these regulations must serve a specific purpose and must not violate the constitution.

Again, if possible, could you cite some cases that support the position that driving is a privilege.

 

[CdwJava]

The matter is well-settled in law, so I see no reason to waste my time attempting to collect case cites for the obvious. And, if you consider the matter logically, if even ONE federal court had recognized that driving is a RIGHT which cannot be regulated by a state, do you think that all 50 states would still be capable of enforcing such regulation? Every attorney and his brother would be out there challenging these laws and then suing the states.

Sorry, but this is a well-traveled road and the state DOES have a right to establish laws regulating the manner in which the public roadways are used.

You may have a right to travel most anywhere you wish - as granted by the Constitution - but, you do not have a right to DRIVE when you travel. Every right granted us under the Constitution has limitations ... firearms, speech, even religion, all have limitations that can be placed upon them. Why should travel be any different?

Again, there exists no CONTROLLING case law that supports the contention that driving is a right.

If you truly wish to push the issue, remove your license plates, return your license to the state, and start driving about. When you get stopped, cited, and have your car impounded, you will be able to test your theory in court. Unless, of course, you believe the court with the gold fringe on the flag is an Admiralty Court and has no jurisdiction over you ... then you'll just add another component to your courtroom misery.

Good luck.

- Carl

 

[Hairyplotter]

The matter is well-settled in law, so I see no reason to waste my time attempting to collect case cites for the obvious. And, if you consider the matter logically, if even ONE federal court had recognized that driving is a RIGHT which cannot be regulated by a state, do you think that all 50 states would still be capable of enforcing such regulation? Every attorney and his brother would be out there challenging these laws and then suing the states.

First, I asked for citations so that I can do independent research in to the matter, I have yet to find any that say driving is a privilege. If you choose to not waste your time, that is your right, but please don't expect me to just take your "say so" on the matter.

Second, I never said that states don't have a right to regulate travel on public highways, they exercise their regulations every time you see a speed limit sign, double yellow line, stop sign.. ect..

You may have a right to travel most anywhere you wish - as granted by the Constitution - but, you do not have a right to DRIVE when you travel. Every right granted us under the Constitution has limitations ... firearms, speech, even religion, all have limitations that can be placed upon them. Why should travel be any different?

To say that you have the right to travel, but not the right to use the most prevelent, socially accepted means of exercising that right (automobile), to me is like saying that you have the right to free speech, but not the right to own a pen or paper. If having a right doesn't encompass all the normal means of exercising that right, then the right is useless. Of all the rights you listed above, not one of them have the word "privliege" attached to the means by which you exercise those rights and yet the state and federal govt. are still able to regulate them as deemed necessary to protect the public interest.

If you truly wish to push the issue, remove your license plates, return your license to the state, and start driving about. When you get stopped, cited, and have your car impounded, you will be able to test your theory in court. Unless, of course, you believe the court with the gold fringe on the flag is an Admiralty Court and has no jurisdiction over you ... then you'll just add another component to your courtroom misery.

In my original post, I asked for citations so that I can do research in to the issue then make an informed decision, had I wanted to "push the issue" without knowing where the courts stand on the issue, I could have done that without coming to the forums.

"Unless, of course, you believe the court with the gold fringe on the flag is an Admiralty Court and has no jurisdiction over you ... then you'll just add another component to your courtroom misery."

Where exactly did this come from? I came here to ask for information, and expected at the very least, intelligent discussion on the issue, if this is the best you have to offer, why bother posting a response to my question.

 

[CdwJava]

First, I asked for citations so that I can do independent research in to the matter, I have yet to find any that say driving is a privilege. If you choose to not waste your time, that is your right, but please don't expect me to just take your "say so" on the matter.

I'm not. There is plenty of info out there to support the position of the state. It's like asking for cites to show that the state has the right to establish a speed limit ... or to regulate certain professions - even firearms. Absent any controlling case law that prohibits the state from allowing unfettered access to the roadways, the state has a right to regulate it. This regulation comes in the form of vehicle registration, licensing, rules of the road, etc.

Second, I never said that states don't have a right to regulate travel on public highways, they exercise their regulations every time you see a speed limit sign, double yellow line, stop sign.. ect..

They also regulate it by license requirements and vehicle standards, as well as registration requirements.

To say that you have the right to travel, but not the right to use the most prevelent, socially accepted means of exercising that right (automobile), to me is like saying that you have the right to free speech, but not the right to own a pen or paper.

Not quite. And that argument has been used many times, and defeated in court many times.

In my original post, I asked for citations so that I can do research in to the issue then make an informed decision, had I wanted to "push the issue" without knowing where the courts stand on the issue, I could have done that without coming to the forums.

I don't have those at my fingertips as it is kind of a non-issue for most people that deal with the law. It's kind of a waste to gather cases that support a well-accepted and long settled matter of law. But, if you wish to research it, go right ahead. But, the only place you will actually MAKE case law on the matter will be to challenge it in court if you are in violation of the statute that you feel conflicts with the Constitution.

Where exactly did this come from? I came here to ask for information, and expected at the very least, intelligent discussion on the issue, if this is the best you have to offer, why bother posting a response to my question.

Because most the people that I have come across that opine that driving is a right and not a privilege tend to also hold the opinion that the court with a gold-fringe flag is an Admiralty Court, AND that they are a "sovereign person" and not subject to the elements of the vehicle code. If you are not one of those folks, hallelujah.

But, in short, I don't have any of those cases on hand I suspect by the absence of other posts here, others don't either. That's because, as I said, it is not generally relevant for people to take note of matters that are so well settled. But, I wish you luck in your search and would encourage you to be wary of web sites that most single, isolated court cases that contain very old or local court cases. the cases that are controlling will be cases that are at the federal level, and that have been upheld or not overturned on appeal.

If you find a case, you will need to properly shepherd it to see if it is still controlling. Most the cases cited by folks that advocate the "right" to drive tend to be local decisions that are very old, or cases that were dumped at the appellate level.

- Carl

 

[Hairyplotter]

Thank you very much and I assure you that I am not part of a fringe element that think they are beyond the law. I am a libertarian, not a lunatic.
I do believe that traveling by automobile is such a fundamental part of modern society that no person should be deprived of it without due process of law.
The first step it would appear is to have the right to travel extended to the use of an automobile.
Again, thank you for your reply, I will do more searching on this issue.