is Driving a Right or Privilege

8/7/2019 is Driving a Right or Privilege

1/4

News Weather Traffic Sports Money Entertainment Health Blogs Video

my home videos audio photos blogs members groups message board

my blog most recent highest rated most viewed top favorites most comments add a blog post

Is Driving A Right Or Privilege? A RIGHT!!

Recently a blogger on here wrote that quote; "Operating a vehicle on the street, roads or highways or any place accessible to

the public is a PRIVILEGE, not a right as many think, that is granted by the state."

It is funny (not) how the government has made so many Americans believe that certain things are supposedly privileges,

granted to us by some kind of kind and benevolent government, and are not rights, which is exactly what they truly are.

Because in fact, operating a vehicle on the street, roads or highways or any place accessible to the public is a RIGHT.

So before we go any further, let's examine a few FACTS.

From the courts:

"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." [Emphasis added] 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 public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn

carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a c ommon Right which he has

under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." [Emphasis added] Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.

And I also have many more court citations I could post here. But unless you enjoy reading legalese just for fun, it gets a bit too

much to post, not to mention pretty redundant.

Bottom line, It is clear that a Citizen has a Right to travel upon the public highways by automobile and the Citizen cannot be

rightfully deprived of his Liberty.

So then where does the misconception come from that the use of the public road is always and only a privilege?

Sorry, have to go back to some more court decisions;

"...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, either in w hole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person

has a vested right to use the highways of the s tate, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at

its discretion." State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Hadfield, supra; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct.

256; and again, other cases too numerous to mention.

OK, now it is starting to make a bit of sense. Here the court held that a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways,

but that he did not have the right to conduct business upon the highways . On this point of law all authorities are unanimous.

"Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that 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, either in whole or in part, as a place of

business for private gain." Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982.

So the states decided to screw around, and make the idea of doing business on the highways, mean the same thing as

a private person in their car.

What is this Right of the Citizen which differs so radically and obviously from one who uses the highway as a place of business?

Who better to enlighten us than Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of Washington State? In State vs. City of Spokane,

supra, the Court also noted a very "radical and obvious" difference, but went on to explain just what the difference is:

"The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a common right to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and

extraordinary."

"This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities." State vs. City of Spokane,

supra.

Now this legal position does not hang precariously upon only a few cases, but has been proclaimed by an impressive array of

cases ranging from the state courts to the federal courts.

"Personal liberty -- or the right to enjoyment of life and liberty -- is one of the fundamental or natural rights, which has been

protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from nor dependent on the U.S.

Constitution... It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights [remember the words of Justice Tolman, supra.] as sacred as the

right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S. Const. Law, Sect.202, p.987.

Tags:billconstitutiondrivinglawleagalnewspatrioticprivillegerights

usa

Category:news

Uploaded By:Tattoo_Gypsy

1 month ago

add tags add

Getting Ripped Off

By sipedo

1 hour ago

Something Personal

By American_Man

8 hours ago

Enemy of the People

Byjeok

9 hours ago

Quit Smoking Help Line has quit

By swflmother

10 hours ago

Firearms bill HR 45 Obama gun control

By Fed_up2here

11 hours ago

More Proof; Obama Screws Vets

By Tattoo_Gypsy

11 hours ago

Twitter

Byjeok

log in join now forgot password advanced

Related L at es t H ig he st R at ed M os t Vi ew ed

Page 1 of 4Is Driving A Right Or Privilege? A RIGHT!! - MyFox Orlando Blog post - My Fox Orlan...

3/18/2009http://affiliate.kickapps.com/_Is-Driving-A-Right-Or-Privilege-A-RIGHT/blog/179229/72...


2/4

Clearly, the distinction between a "Right" to use the public roads and a "privilege" to use the public roads is drawn upon the line

of "using the road as a place of business" and the various state AND federal have all held so.

Keep in mind it is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and their primary and preferred use is

for private purposes.

But their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition

as it sees fit." Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 U S 251; Pachard vs. Banton, 264 US 140, and cases cited; Frost and F. Trucking

Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592; Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290; Parlett

Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313.

So what is a privilege to use the roads? By now it should be apparent even to the "learned" that an attempt to use the road as

a place of business is a privilege. The distinction must be drawn between...

Traveling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads, which is our Right;

Using the public roads as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business, which is a privilege.

"[The roads]...are constructed and maintained at public expense, and no person therefore, can insist that he has, or may

acquire, a vested right to their use in carrying on a commercial business." Ex Parte Sterling, 53 SW.2d 294; Barney vs.

Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.

"When the public highways are made the place of business the state has a right to regulate their use in t he interest of safety

and convenience of the public as well as the preservation of the highways." Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, supra.

Now it should be noted that extensive research has not turned up one case or authority acknowledging the state's power to

convert the individual's right to travel upon the public roads into a "privilege."

Therefore, it is concluded that the average Citizen does have a "Right" to travel and transport his property upon the public

highways and roads and the exercise of this Right is not a "privilege."

I could go on and on quoting court decision after court decision; h owever, the Constitution itself answers the question - Can a

government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in

Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall bethe supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in theConstitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding."

In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:

"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 byOath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."

In this manner, the government does not have the authority for the conversion of our Unalienable Rights and Freedoms into the

slavery of governmental "Privilege" where an Inalienable Right can be transformed into a Crime.

So there is no confusion, allow me to define Unalienable Right.

The Declaration of Independence states that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among

these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness . . ."

The Declaration recognizes that unalienable rights are defined as coming from our Creator, NOT any person or Government.

Neither the Declaration or the Constitution could enumerate all the rights which were to be protected. They could, however,

point to the source of rights - our Creator - for reference by future generations.

So our RIGHTS are inherent. They are not gifts from, or bestowed upon us, from some government or law. They exist above

and beyond the law and government. Meaning the government (at least not without due process) cannot remove those

RIGHTS from us, nor turn those rights into privileges.

This ultimately means, free people have a right to travel on the roads that are provided by their servants (in other words: our

government) for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day.

Licensing cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right.

The drivers license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce or hire; that is, if they earn their

living on the road, and they use extraordinary machines on the roads.

In other words, if you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a drivers license.

One aspect of personal liberty consists of the power of lo comotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to

whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law.

Streets and highways are established and maintained for the purpose of travel and transportation by the public. Such travel

may be for business or pleasure. 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 indiv idual cannot be rightfully deprived.

14 hours ago

Haliegh A Murdered Child

By American_Man

17 hours ago

We need to suport Groveland ...

By UncleRob

21 hours ago

Was it all worth the trouble?

By swflmother

1 day ago

Get a blog feed from Tattoo_Gypsy

Get a blog feed from all users




3/4

Comments

Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation that would abrogate them.

The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.

Still do not believe me that driving on the p ublic roads is a RIGHT and not a privilege?

Think about it this way; if you got a letter from the Department of Motor Vehicles that informed you that your driving "privileges"

have been suspended simply because your sister refused to go on a date with the head of the Department of Motor Vehicles,

you'd have a very good case in court when you sued them. If driving really was only a "privilege", you'd have no legal

recourse.

Ok, ok, I'll admit most people (including me) are willing to accept the inconvenience of first demonstrating that we can safely

operate a vehicle before being able do operate one on a public road.

But that does not mean that we accept that driving is a "privilege" that can be whisked away by the State at any time for any

reason.

The reason this whole thing bugs me is the fact that some in the Government now are trying to say that other things are only

privileges, "just like driving is a privilege ." For example, consider that Obama apparently considers free speech to be a

privilege.

I think you'll find most state constitutions have language regarding the "right to travel" under the common law vs statutory law

which most states operated under until the 1930's.

When most states adopted statutory laws, the right to travel became a "privilege" given to citizens by virtue of a drivers license.

Likewise, getting married is privilege given to couples by the state through the marriage license. Anything granted to you by the

state is a privilege, not a right.

But that does not mean to say that the state or federal government, has the legal or constitutional RIGHT to turn YOUR OR

MY INALIENABLE RIGHTS into a Privilege.

Remember:

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in

legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." -Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442

And:

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own

way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open

his door to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives

nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long

antecedent to the organization of the state. ...He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their

rights." -Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1905)

"The makers of the Constitution conferred, as against the government, the Right to be le t alone; the most comprehensive of

rights, and the right most valued by civilized men." -United States Supreme Court Justice Brandeis in Olmstead v. United

States (1928)

Semper Fi

Tattoo Gypsy

http://[email protected]

Email to Friends Add Blog Post

Flag

(6 Ratings)

Comments: 33

Views: 231

add comment

Great blog, Goldi. Abunai is rrrr... abunai is rrrrr. Anything you need a license for is a priviledge.

Seems the only rights we have are to bow down and obey or go to jail.

Abunai, I find that theory interesting.

So if I understand you correctly what you are saying is that the Government had GRANTED me

the privilege to get married to my wife.

Getting married is a government privilege? I have no right to get married?

I would think that the right to get married would fall under the Constitutional guarantee or the Right

northton, 4 weeks ago | Flag




4/4

Terms of Service |Privacy Policy |Community Policy |Feedback |Jobs |TV Ratings |Advertise with Us |News Corp

News | Weather | Traffic | Sports | Money | Entertainment | Health | Blogs | Mornings | Contact Us

Many pages in this Fox Television Stations, Inc. web site feature links to other sites, some of which are operated by companies unrelated to Fox Television Stations, Inc. Fox Television Stations, Inc. has no control over the content or availability of any linked site.

TM and (c) 2008 Fox Television Stations, Inc., and its related entities. All rights r eserved. Any reproduction, duplication, or distribution in any form is expressly prohibited

User-Generated Blogs by KickApps Terms of Service Help

[ View All ]

to Life, Liberty and Happiness.

Admittedly the happiness part might be a stretch depending on to whom one is married to.

Well, actually so would the Liberty part since after getting married one is no longer exactly at liberty

to act as if not married.

Which at least leaves Life. Well again, some consider their life pretty much over once they get

married.

OK, let me get back to you on this.

But I have to admit I still wonder if the government has a right to tell me I cannot get married.

Because only when the government has a right to tell me I cannot get married (excepting I am not

getting married to my relative, or someone under age) then I no longer have a RIGHT as a free

American Citizen to get married. And I think that opens a whole 'nother can of worms as to

government intervention and interference into my private life.

Tattoo Gypsy

This is really an easy one....

Anything that requires you to have a License is a privlege.

Native Floridian2, the truth is often stranger than fiction. LOL My dad had a wrinkle on one

cornea that rendered it for appearance only, due to age and diabetes he wasn't going to elect

surgery and possible healing issues. On the work thing, have you ever done anything similar to

fabricating wire loom bundles and labeling for aircraft avionics ? If s o that new Brazilian corporate

aircraft plant on the east coast may be a possibility . Just a thought.

Actually meb452m, did you know that you can actually get a valid driver's license even if you

ARE CONSIDERED LEGALLY BLIND!!! It's true, I actually had a friend years ago, don't know if

he is still around Florida now. but his drivers license actually stated he was LEGALLY BLIND, yet

he had a driver license. I, myself am also legally blind in one eye and so the only restrictions I havewhen driving a motor vehicle is it must have outside mirrors on BOTH sides of the vehicle (actually

states RIGHT/PASSENGER OUTSIDE MIRROR REQUIRED), even though I have sight in

the "blind eye", this due to a retina detachment, then re-attachment surgery that did not take

properly. The vision in the one eye is skewed, sort of like looking at yourself in one of t hose fun

house mirrors that distorts your image. Now I can't get a C DL license, even though I have no

problems driving a large truck like a semi, but the sight restriction on this must be 100% correctable

to 20/20 with correcting lenses or contacts, unfortunately mine isn't. Neither can I work in the career

field I had been in for over 30+ years, electronic assembly because the components/parts are so

dang small today I can not focus in on them. So it's a handicap to me, but NOT to Social Security, I

must be legally blind in both eyes for this to be considered a disability, YET this very limitation

DISABLES me from getting a job! makes you wonder about how some folks can get disability on

some things and not others doesn't it? Makes me mad as hell because I can't get work because of

that or because I don't speak Spanish.

So I can't even get a "driving job" because of this limitation as well.

So, right there shows why driving IS NOT A RIGHT, but a "Priveledge", because if it was truly a

right, I, nor anyone else driving big rigs or commercial vehicles w ould even need any type of driver

license, insurance or anything else associated with operating a motor vehicle of "any kind!"

Tattoo_Gypsy, 4 weeks ago | Flag

abunai, 4 weeks ago | Flag

Meb452m, 1 month ago | Flag

Native_Floridian2, 1 month ago | Flag


3/18/2009http://affiliate kickapps com/ Is Driving A Right Or Privilege A RIGHT/blog/179229/72

Documents

is Driving a Right or Privilege