It seems that some are not as informed about rights vs privilege as they might like to think they are.....

U.S. COURT DECISIONS CONFIRM "DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE" IS A
CITIZENS RIGHT AND NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED PRIVILEGE.


For many years Professionals within the criminal justice System have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state government in the form of the issuance of a permit or license to that Particular individual. Legislators, police officers and court officials are becoming aware that there are now court decisions that prove the fallacy of the legal opinion that" driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval, i.e. a license". Some of these cases are:
Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)

Case # 2 - "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 right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:

Case # 3 - "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.

Case # 4 - "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Iiberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.

http://www.realtruth.biz/driving/supremecourt.htm

so they went and subverted the meaning of "Regulated" the same way they do in the Second Amendment!

i guess thats good... not sure if something is going to change or not tho...

there is no RIGHT to drive a vehicle,,,

do people really think that makes sense?

regulation is equivalent to laws and requirements,, this idea that the word 'regulate' cannot possibly refer to driving requirements,,

its somehow irrelevant

we have the 'right' when we meet regulations

Get a clue! We have the RIGHT to operate a vehicle without a license or registration and to travel the roadways, but there are regulations on the roadways

I was told, by a Gubament agency, if I didn't agree to pay them what they wanted, they
d take my DL away.

we have a right to 'travel',,, i.e, move between cities or states freely ,,that's maybe why they refer to it as 'freedom of movement',, not 'freedom of driving'


we have a regulated RIGHT to drive a car under conditions that take into account public safety,, ie,, testing and licensing,,,

That's just another revenue lie and false according to the law..... unless you think you know better than the courts.

What the law is and what they impose are quite often 2 different things.....just ask Obozo and Holder

not really, you can drive all you want without anything as long as your on a private road... on a public road, you must meet the the regulations - license, insurance, tags are good, stopping at stop signs, not going to fast....

That is wrong.... you must obey the laws of the road, but you are not required as a person to have a license unless you operate professionally

Read the law and the cases stated

the courts are upholding a 'right to travel'.....lol

re read the citations of the OP,,,,

Not the right to travel, only the regulations of the roadways, speed, turns, cautions, lights, etc

"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the RIGHT TO TRAVEL...

The RIGHT of the citizen TO TRAVEL...

RIGHT TO TRAVEL is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived ....

Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, THE RIGHT TO REMOVE FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Iiberty.....

You are offering opinion you hate so badly.... show the law that challenges the court decisions stated in the OP

this was not opinion, I merely re posted the citations of the OP,,


I don't need to show any law that challenges what is already there, the courts decisions already refer repeatedly to a 'right to travel',,,,lol


not a 'right to drive'

i read on public roadways, you have to follow the regulations, one of which is having a license...

So we must state fact in our rebuttals but you don't have to?

Show the law!

if that was the case, then blind people could drive...

No, because they could not follow the regulations of road signs and endanger public safety....as stated in the OP

Operating an unregistered vehicle without a license does not endanger public safety.

A child, a blind person, a drunk, these things do violate public safety

a right is a right, including blind people and children...