I’m NOT a lawyer and nothing in this video is to be taken as legal advice. This is simply a reading of a lower court and Supreme Court cases regarding licensing those who choose to travel on the highways with their personal property.
Sources: Obama: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6imFv…
People v Horton: https://law.justia.com/cases/californ…
Supreme Court Cases: https://www.geniemusic.com/?w=1624
More cases: https://central-bailbonds.com/u-s-sup…
joseph mcgee
We would like to learn more of how to be able to travel with out driver”s license
David allen Guy
lmao no they did not rule that at all.
Justice Starr Hunter
The right of a 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 his 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 purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will.”
[Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367,154 SE 579 (1930)]
Dave
1930?? Times have changed and if you feel safe to drive your vehicle on the road with others that do not have a license or better yet insurance go for it and see how much you end up paying in the long run when your pulled over. You should feel very safe as female in Battlefield MI
Rob
no sir people have changed!evefto.e co careened you can’t hold a job wighoutvtransportsuon of some sort ease back on driving laws I can guarantee more people work because they can. instead of they have to…real people don’t make excuses they livethem
Ted
yes times have changed however not so much as to turn a right into a privilege and charge a fee for the government to be able to violate your right to be let alone. In America you have to give your consent to the DMV (in the form of an application) for any adverse action to be enforceable.
Brian Farlin
lol that is not the intent of that ruling at all.
Yes… you do have the right to travel. This case was about a city ordinance that issues permits to drive, and arbitrarily denied them. They were also attempting to control powers reserved for the State.
Just as with every Constitutional right… SCOTUS said that the State not only has the right, but has the duty to regulate outr rights.
You have effectively taken a small quote from the overall text of this ruling, and omitted the context… yes, you have a right to travel, but are subject to regulation by the state, such as them requiring a driver’s license.
You have also ignored all the enjoying and relevant case law addressing the issue of travel on public roads that were issued both before and after Thompson v smith, such as:
Hess v. Pawloski 274 US 352 (1927)
Reitz v. Mealey 314 US 33 (1941
)Wells v. Malloy 402 F. Supp. 856 (1975)
And you COMPLETELY disregarded a SCOTUS ruling that effectively overruled T v S, which states that we do not have a constitutional right to travel:
Hendrick v. Maryland 235 US 610 (1915)
I’m not sure if you’re ignorant as to how constitutional law works, just really horrible at research, dishonest, or mentally ill…
…. but you are leading poor people in legal trouble
but the city & state can still regulate that travel on public roads.
Jermaine
It’s not that the constitution gives one the “right to travel”…It is an inherent God given right on this PLANET that one may move about freely uninhibited les he commits a crime against humanity/hue-mans.
Universal Law, Natural Law, God’s law is the Supreme law of the land. Then comes the constitution, laws, statutes and codes rules and regulations.
Cheryl Kissell
Can you cite that case…I’m having a hard time finding it:
“Just as with every Constitutional right… SCOTUS said that the State not only has the right, but has the duty to regulate outr rights”
Kirk Mullins
Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367,154 SE 579 (1930)
Quoting you above:
“And you COMPLETELY disregarded a SCOTUS ruling that effectively overruled T v S, which states that we do not have a constitutional right to travel:
Hendrick v. Maryland 235 US 610 (1915)”
How can a 1915 decision over rule a 1930 decision?
Just because the State can regulate something doesn’t mean it can require a license to do it, especially when rights are involved.
Joseph Daniel Beasley
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.
Jacob
“Just as with any Constitutional right… SCOTUS said that the State not only has the right, but has the duty to regulate outr [sic] rights.” Where is this said in caselaw? The State has only what powers and duties which We the People grant to it.
“… we do not have the Constitutional right to travel… ” On its face this quote is ludicrous. We have the God-given right to go where ever we so please, so long as we do not cause harm to another man or woman nor damage the property of such. Yes, there are places we cannot go into due to either fences or armed guards barring entry. However, you can travel from your home to your buddy’s house by walking, riding a bicycle, or by motorized conveyance (car).
Insofar as driving without a license the laws of the road are different in each state. For example: Here in Georgia (the state, not GA – the federal territory) one is required to have a license regardless of commercial or private activity on the public roads. Insurance is required for all motorists.
Check out the law of your state. Contrast it with the laws of the Federal States.
Jmma
My family is caught up in this … and you are spot on, I’ve researched enough to know that the Sovereign Citizen movement, definitely twists things to their advantage! It’s a crazy play on words! Like calling themselves State Nationals, or just Americans! I’ve witnessed what’s it like being pulled over by a police officer for a made up plate with no tabs… etc, then refusing to give identifying information, until I pushed hard for the driver’s license to be given up, this saved said person from being arrested! All the while the sovereign person (we’ll call them) has to say specific things, sentences, jargon! If you look it up they all sound the same, oh yes least I forget… they have to video the entire incident so they can defend themselves in court! Which the court views as a Clown show of sorts! Ever since my family started down this rabbit hole ️, I’ve felt major red flags all over the entire thing. I think it’s a no win situation! Very disheartened!!
Steven Grant
true
Ervin middleton
You SURE about that? I have 33 pages of case law that says otherwise. I’ll try posting just the first 4 pages here, let’s see if it allows it: Haddad v. State, 23 Ariz. 105, 201 Pac. 847 (1921)
That the occupation of common carriers on the public streets and highways is a proper subject matter for legislative regulation is well settled.
“When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created.” Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 126, 24 L. Ed. 77.
See, also Elliott on Roads and Streets, 3d ed., § 526.
The employment of “hackmen and draymen whose places of business are in the public highway” was a proper subject for police regulation at common law. Munn v. Illinois, supra. And recent authority classes these and the like occupations with privileges exercisable only at the will of the sovereign.
“The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his property‘thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain, in the running of a stage-coach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of a citizen, a common right, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary. As to the former, the extent of legislative power is that of regulation; but, as to the latter, its power is broader. The right may be wholly denied, or it may be permitted to some and denied to others, because of its extraordinary nature. This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities:
“ ‘A distinction must be made between the general use, which all of the public are permitted to make of the street for ordinary purposes, and the special and peculiar use, which is made by classes of persons in the pursuit of their occupation or business, such as hackmen, drivers of express wagons, omnibuses, etc. Tiedeman on Municipal Corporations, § 299. The rule must be considered settled that no person can acquire the right to make a special or exceptional use of a public highway, not common to all citizens *116of the state, except by grant from the sovereign power.’ Jersey City Gas Co. v. Dwight, 29 N. J. Eq. 242; McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, 1620.” Ex parte Dickey, 76 W. Va. 576, L. R. A. 1916F, 840, 85 S. E. 781, at p. 782. See, also, West v. City of Asbury Park, 89 N. J. L. 402, 99 Atl. 190; Ex parte Bogle (Tex. Cr. App.), 179 S. W. 1193; Gill v. City of Dallas (Tex. Civ. App.), 209 S. W. 209.
Even without constitutional authorization, it would have been competent for the legislature to delegate power over the subject matter to a special agency like the Corporation Commission. 12 C. J. 847; State v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 56 Fla. 617, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 639, 47 South. 969.
Section 6, article 15, of our Constitution, however, forecloses all question on this head:
“The law-making power may enlarge the powers and extend the duties of the Corporation Commission, and may prescribe rules and regulations to govern proceedings instituted by and before it; but, until, such rules and regulations are provided by law, the Commission may make rules and regulations to govern such proceedings.” Under these provisions there can be no doubt that chapter 130, enlarging, as it does, the powers and extending the duties of the Corporation Commission, is so far fully warranted.
The control which, under the police power of the state, may be exercised over automobiles carrying persons or freight for hire over the public ways, has received consideration in many of the decided cases. As being a legitimate exercise of the police power of the state, whether exercised directly by the Legislature or by municipalities, or other governmental agencies under delegated powers, regulations of various kinds over automotive transportation on the public highways have been upheld. For illustrative *117cases, see P. U. Com. v. Garviloch, 54 Utah, 406, 181 Pac. 272; Memphis v. State ex rel. Ryals (Tenn.) L. R. A. 1916B, 1151, 179 S. W. 631; Memphis St. R. Co. v. Rapid Transit Co., 133 Tenn. 99, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 578, L. R. A. 1916B, 1143, 179 S. W. 635; Farmers & Merchants’ Co-op. Tel. Co. v. Boswell Tel. Co., 187 Ind. 371, 119 N. E. 513; West v. City of Asbury Park, 89 N. J. L. 402, 99 Atl. 190; Ex parte Bogle (Tex. Cr. App.), 179 S. W. 1193; Winchester & S. R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 106 Va. 264, 55 S. E. 692; Ex parte Parr, 82 Tex. Cr. 525, 200 S. W. 404.
https://cite.case.law/ariz/23/105/
Anderson v. Thomas, 26 P.2d 60 (Or. 1933)
Oregon Supreme Court
In recent years, with the advent of motor vehicles and the improvement of highways, there has arrived a new and rapidly growing form of commercial transportation — busses for passengers and trucks for freight. Oregon, one of the first states to appreciate the necessity of hard-surfaced highways, has spent many millions of dollars, raised by bond issues, license fees and gasoline tax, in the construction and maintenance of highways and bridges. With the increase of traffic it has been necessary to widen and straighten the roadways, and in many instances to rebuild them entirely, in order to care for present and future needs. Either alone or in cooperation with the state, the cities and counties have contributed many more millions of dollars in establishing rights of way and in the construction and maintenance of highways.
“The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain, in the running of a stage coach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of a citizen, a common right, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary. As to the former, the *Page 592 extent of legislative power is that of regulation; but, as to the latter, its power is broader. The right may be wholly denied, or it may be permitted to some and denied to others, because of its extraordinary nature. This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities:
“`A distinction must be made between the general use, which all of the public are permitted to make of the street for ordinary purposes, and the special and peculiar use, which is made by classes of persons in the pursuit of their occupation or business, such as hackmen, drivers of express wagons, omnibuses, etc. Tiedeman on Municipal Corporations, § 299.
“`The rule must be considered settled that no person can acquire the right to make a special or exceptional use of a public highway, not common to all citizens of the state, except by grant from the sovereign power’. Jersey City Gas Co. v. Dwight, 29 N.J. Eq. 242; McQuillen, Municipal Corporations, 1620”. Ex parte Dickey, 76 W. Va. 576 (85 S.E. 781, L.R.A. 1915F, 840).
The same principle is thus stated in Stephenson v. Binford,287 U.S. 251 (77 L. Ed. 203, 53 S. Ct. 181):
“It is well established law that the highways of the state are public property; that their primary and preferred use is for private purposes; and that their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary, which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit. Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140, 144, 68 L. Ed. 596, 607, 44 S. Ct. 257, and cases cited; Frost F. Trucking Co. v. Railroad Commission,271 U.S. 583, 592, 593, 70 L. Ed. 1101, 1104, 1105, 47 A.L.R. 457,46 S. Ct. 605; Hodge Drive-It-Yourself Co. v. Cincinnati,284 U.S. 335, 337, 76 L. Ed. 323, 326, 52 S. Ct. 144; Johnson Transfer Freight Lines v. Perry (D.C.), 47 F.2d 900, 902; Southern Motorways v. Perry (D.C.), 39 F.2d 145, 147; People’s Transit Co. v. Henshaw (C.C.A. 8th), 20 F.2d 87, 89; Weksler v. Collins, 317 Ill. 132, 138, 139, 147 N.E. 797; Maine Motor Coaches v. Public Utilities Commission, 125 Me. 63, 65,130 A. 866.”
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4081055/anderson-v-thomas/?
BARBOUR v. WALKER
1927 OK 253
259 P. 552
126 Okla. 227
“It would be impossible for the Commission, acting under such act, to grant a special privilege detrimental to the interests of the public, or to create a monopoly with like effect. The public has a voice in the enforcement of this act and the right to speak whenever its interests are not subserved. It has a right to say that no person or corporation shall use its public highways as a transportation line for hire; it has a right to say that any one who may be permitted to operate over such lines in such manner must have a license to do so, and has a voice as to whether its necessities and convenience require that one, two, or three shall be licensed to render the required service, or that none is required. It might be a material benefit to the public to have one transportation line over a given highway, and a substantial detriment to have more than one, hence the limit to the number is determined by the public needs. It is not that the petitioner or any other private concern has a vested right or any right to appropriate the public highways to its own free use and benefit for profit, but that the public, from the standpoint of its convenience and necessities, as well as from the standpoint of property rights in the public highways, may demand a ‘public service’ if it needs it, or reject it if it is not needed, and a voice as to how much of such service it needs and the conditions under which it may be rendered, and no private rights are paramount to the public good.”
Michael Hernandez
I haven’t had a license since 2011 December 28 and they won’t give me one they revoke my license. I paid all my fines I paid everything and you don’t get shit here New York State.
DARLINGNIKKI DIRTYMIND
Tons of comments, if you research and share VS stipulating possible outcomes we are all to benefit.
We are born. We have rights. We are not citizens. Control you and your imagination. We were all born rich.
Rob
no sir people have changed!evefto.e co careened you can’t hold a job wighoutvtransportsuon of some sort ease back on driving laws I can guarantee more people work because they can. instead of they have to…real people don’t make excuses they livethem
Jason
so yes, ypu have the right to travel. states also have the 10th amendment to determine HOW YOU TRAVEL. You can always put them feet to the ground, however when you drive a car, automobile, motor vehicle you need a license PER THE 10TH AMENDMENT
George A. Valencia Sr.
Look up driving without a license in UTAH! Tell me what to do please…