This article will explore the following:
Do citizens have a fundamental right to travel; what does that include and who can claim it
Yet another example of the importance of legal definitions, and how they are used to fool us
Is it possible to reclaim one’s right to travel
How to resolve this in a reasonable way
Other References
I cannot overemphasize how important legal definitions are. This is the tool used to enslave us; to encroach on our fundamental rights; to get us to voluntarily relinquish our unalienable rights. Why do I need a driver’s license if I have a ‘fundamental right to travel’? What does fundamental right to travel mean? At the end of this article, I provide links to websites that have researched this much more thoroughly, done by people much more knowledgeable than I. In sticking with my principle of providing court cases to prove my points, below are just four such cases:
"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."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."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."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.
But drilled into our heads in high school is that driving is a ‘privilege’!
I’ve bolded the words to focus on, common law right, natural right, fundamental right. These all are referring to unalienable rights. What kind of right don’t you see? Civil rights. By now you should be able to answer why… because only state citizenship, not US citizenship, has unalienable rights.
FACT: citizens of the states have a common law right to travel without needing any approval or requirement to be licensed.
Down the rabbit hole… another lesson in the importance of legal definitions.
Given that we as state citizens have an unalienable right to travel, why do we all think that we are required to have a driver’s license; that driving is a privilege? Because the indoctrination starting in childhood has been a crashing success! Well, that and the fact that there are now over 350 million people and cars go much faster, it probably is a good thing for modern society to regulate driving in some way — I think we all could agree on that.
HOWEVER, the restriction of our right to travel was done in an underhanded, sneaky way, which, unfortunately, is standard operating procedure for government. This has been done for all the encroachment on our fundamental rights. Why couldn’t the government simply present the argument for requiring a “traveler’s license” to the voters and let them decide? I honestly do think that the vast majority would vote on some way to legally recognize that fundamental right and implement REASONABLE requirements for public safety. Instead, what did government do? That’s where we have to go down the legalese rabbit hole… ready to get red-pilled?
Legal definitions from Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.
When was the last time you got a traffic citation’? Did you go to traffic court, or just pay the fine? Hmmm, I wonder what the legal definition for ‘traffic’ is,
“Traffic. Commerce; trade; sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, and the like. The passing or exchange of goods or commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money. The subjects of transportation on a route, as persons or goods. See Commerce. ”
“Commerce. The exchange of goods, productions, or property of any kind; the buying, selling, and exchange of articles.”
I’m confused… When I’m driving on the roads, I’m not involved in any kind of ‘commerce’, are you? If you’re like me, we are just trying to get from home to work, and back home at the end of the day; to go to the grocery store; to take the kids skiing. Our driving has NOTHING to do with commerce in any way, shape or form. So, NO, I should not be getting a ‘traffic’ citation. Those definitions include two other words we better look up:
“Transportation. The movement of goods or persons from one place to another, by a carrier.”
“Carrier. Individual or organization engaged in transporting persons or goods FOR HIRE.”
BINGO!!!
We’ve crashed at the bottom of that rabbit hole! You are ‘operating in commerce’. Somehow they assume you are using the roads for material gain. I think that is the legal nexus that gives a state jurisdiction over your fundamental right to travel. You voluntarily do this by getting a driver’s license. Note the words used, ‘transporting’, as in transportation which involves a ‘carrier’ which means its done FOR HIRE, for compensation. The use of these legal terms IMPLIES you are using the public roads for business, for profit. That was not mentioned in the above court cases, but they are referring to traveling for private, non-commercial purposes. If you’re a taxi company or trucking company, then you are using the public roads for material gain; you are operating in a commercial capacity and the right to travel does not apply.
Do you have a passenger car? Well, duh, of course… I have a family so I need a car that will carry more than one person. Oh jeez, don’t tell me there’s more… I hate to ask, but what’s the legal definition of ‘passenger’?
“Passenger. In general, a person who gives compensation to another for transportation… has various meanings, depending upon the circumstances under which and the context in which the word is used; sometimes it is construed in a restricted legal sense as referring to one who is being carried by another for hire.
The essential elements of ‘passenger’ as opposed to ‘guest’ under guest statute are that the driver must receive some benefit sufficiently real, tangible, and substantial to serve as the inducing cause of the transportation so as to completely overshadow mere hospitality or friendship;”
Note the use of the words, compensation, passenger, transportation, carried — all implying for hire. I ask again, do you have a ‘passenger’ vehicle? Hell NO! I do carry ‘guests’ in my vehicle. My family doesn’t pay me to take them to the grocery store, or to school. Uh oh, I used a new word, ‘vehicle’… As in motor vehicle, Department of Motor Vehicles. I don’t know its legal definition. Don’t tell me… operating in commerce? Back to Black’s Law…
“Vehicle. That in or on which persons, goods, etc. may be CARRIED from one place to another, especially along the ground. Any moving support or container fitted or used for the conveyance of bulky objects; a means of conveyance. Term refers to every device in, upon or by which a person or property is or may be TRANSPORTED upon a highway.”
Hmmm, I don’t know… that is a bit ambiguous… could go either way. With all these legal definitions flying around, and considering that some of the USCode might apply to us as US citizens, is there a definition for “motor vehicle” in the USCode? Oh, lookie here,
“… and used for commercial purposes…”. Although I’m not sure why its in Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure. That needs additional research <article>…
Wait, they use the word, ‘cargo’… how much you want to bet it implies ‘for hire’ too?
“Cargo. The load of a vessel, train, truck, airplane, or other carrier. See Freight.”
We already have the legal definition for ‘carrier’ (above) which includes ‘for hire’, and I don’t see listed a type of conveyance that I would be driving. Do I even need to look up ‘freight’… nah.
All of the terms used in regulations and DMV forms involved in driving your personal vehicle, as legally defined, imply operating in commerce. They could use other terms if they wanted for those NOT operating in commerce! Why don’t they? Why don’t we have two types of driver license: a traveler’s license and a commercial license? We can now properly define the DMV:
DMV = Department regulating use of public roads for commercial purposes.
I remember looking at the back of my driver’s license decades ago where they define what ‘Classes’ are authorized… for me it was ‘CM’. The ‘M’ is for motorcycles. Could the ‘C’ = Commercial? They would probably prefer it wasn’t ‘C’, but left it that way due to the mess it would cause to change it.
Here’s the interesting part… My original license’s definition for ‘C’ on the back was four or five lines! It included some verbiage to the effect of, “… able to operate vehicles capable of carrying MORE THAN 10 PASSENGERS.” More than 10 people! Jeez, that definition could include a bus! I believe there was also a limit on weight. If that isn’t an obvious hint to operating a taxi/bus service, i.e., operating in commerce, I don’t know what is. Heck, if I was Gov, I’d want to hide something so obvious… they did! About 20 years ago. My current driver license only includes the clause about
‘Class C-CARS/VANS/PICKUPS; MAY TOW A VEH < 10,000 LBS.”
The “CARS/VANS/PICKUPS” replaced the “More than 10 passengers”. What does your license say? If you have an old license, check it out and let me know. I’d show you but I threw mine out long ago.
I don’t think I need anything from the DMV; I’m not using my automobile for commercial purposes. By one’s own actions, going to the DMV and applying for a driver’s license, you are voluntarily declaring that you are using the roads for commercial purposes and are therefore subject to the laws that regulate such. Another possibility is there is a legal nexus to being a US citizen that ties you to something in the USCode. It just occurred to me that last time I renewed my license, I’d need a ‘special’ driver license that is recognized by TSA if I wanted to fly on a commercial airline. We’re just the frogs in the pot and the burner turned up another wee bit. Why couldn’t gov just do things in a straightforward, transparent manner?
Is it possible to reclaim one’s right to travel?
There are many websites and videos of people who have challenged the state’s requirement for a driver’s license. Some win, some lose. [See the References section at the end]. I prefer to avoid getting into a legal battle with a thousand pound govrilla, that has unlimited funds and lawyers on staff. I would prefer to do this as a citizen/government compromise.
There are differing opinions, but one path involves ‘revoking’ US citizenship, and reaffirming/declaring only state citizenship — obviously to be able to claim one’s unalienable right to travel. Remember my article on the subordination of unalienable rights — only state citizens can claim unalienable rights, and US citizenship is paramount and dominant over state citizenship. Will your local law enforcement recognize that right? If not, and you get a traffic ticket, and end up in ‘traffic’ court, will that judge honor your fundamental right to travel? I used the ‘t’ word again! I’M NOT OPERATING IN COMMERCE! Calm down… breathe…
I could swear that the last ‘ticket’ I got, which was over a decade ago, there were several checkboxes at the top to indicate what ‘type’ of citation, and the box the cop checked was, “Traffic”… no sh*t! Next time you get a citation, I bet you’ll check too while remembering this article… and that’s a good thing. We’re educating ourselves and when we reach critical mass of voters we can push for change… but what kind of change?
How to resolve this in a reasonable way
How do we, citizens and government, provide a means to:
GOV: Recognize that as citizens of a state we have an unalienable right to travel. Don’t lie, obfuscate and inveigle in order to subvert our rights all ‘in the interest of public safety.’ In the long run, government by coercion never ends well.
PEEPS: Voluntarily agree to LIMITED restrictions on that right in the interest of public safety.
To the first point… Mr/Ms Gov, DON’T FIND SNEAKY WAYS TO ENCROACH and LIMIT OUR RIGHTS — that just breeds resentment and distrust.
To the second point… We the People, as reasonable, responsible adults, recognize that our young children should not being able to legally hop in the 2500 pound steel projectile capable of 100+mph and go on a joy ride — definitely a public safety concern. So We the Peeps need to recognize that some reasonable restrictions on that right are necessary, and we would need to voluntarily agree to those restrictions, and some form of penalties as incentive to drive responsibly.
Other Resources
Just do a web search for ‘right to travel’… don’t use google or other search engines that have been shown to be filtering/manipulating search results.
One of many resources for much greater details is the right to travel.