Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Common-law Right to Travel


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Common-law Right to Travel Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Common-law Right to Travel - 1/17/2010 11:53:18 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

FR
Once again the answer is simple....you have the right to travel on the public roads....if you don't wish to get a driver's license and registration, etc. then you are free to walk, or ride a horse, or use one of those Amish buggies. Nowhere in the constitution do you have the right to travel by car.



It does not say I have the right to travel by feet either!

or horse

or buggie

or pogo stick!

Fact is I have the right to travel by whatever means I chose whether that locomotion is my feet pistons or turbine or warp drive.



.

< Message edited by Real0ne -- 1/18/2010 12:07:12 AM >


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Arpig)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Common-law Right to Travel - 1/18/2010 12:06:47 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it. Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105

A State [or the US] may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal Constitution. Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 U.S (1943)


The government doesnt have to follow the rules just those who consented to be governed :)

.


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Common-law Right to Travel - 1/18/2010 12:08:00 AM   
rockspider


Posts: 633
Joined: 9/26/2009
Status: offline
These free people. They seem to wanna be free to use the infrastructure everybody created without adhering to the same rules as the rest. I wonder what the jackass would say if i used his car as a shithouse claiming it was my common law right to shit where i felt like.

(in reply to Arpig)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Common-law Right to Travel - 1/18/2010 12:08:15 AM   
LafayetteLady


Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Northern New Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

No its just started and in a big way in the courts!

"...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472


of course you know that the constitution stips common law in the 5th and 7th



Just started? You quote a case from 1793 and that is "just starting?" Cars didn't even exist at that point.

quote:



Driving, Passengers, Vehicle, is commercial and a privilege
Travel, Guests, Automobile is NOT and is a Right


The mode with which you "travel" is not a "right." Owning and automobile is not a "right." Anytime you drive a car, walk across the street, ride in a train, bus, airplane, skateboard, whatever, you could be considered to be "traveling," but if you are at the wheel of that car, you are "driving" and that is not a "right"

quote:


you see while you have the right to travel inebriated you do not have the right to injure another in person or equity which you see covers the damage side of everything you just mentioned.


It is against the law to be behind the wheel of a moving vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. It doesn't matter one bit if you call it "traveling" (yes, officer, I'm "traveling" home from the bar), you are breaking the law.

If you want to use case law to try to back up your points, try shepardizing them to make sure they are still relevant.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Common-law Right to Travel - 1/18/2010 12:16:54 AM   
Ialdabaoth


Posts: 1073
Joined: 5/4/2008
From: Tempe, AZ
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Fact is I have the right to travel by whatever means I chose whether that locomotion is my feet pistons or turbine or warp drive.


Let's examine the logical implications of this statement, shall we?

Let's say I decide that I have the right to travel by running really quickly, with a sharpened knife stuck out in front of me in my hand. It's not my intent to stab anyone, but if someone doesn't get out of my way, that's not really my fault, is it?

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Common-law Right to Travel - 1/18/2010 12:24:07 AM   
ThatDamnedPanda


Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

you see while you have the right to travel  inebriated...



Yes. But you do not have the right to operate a motor vehicle while inebriated. You don't seriously believe any of this shit makes any sense at all, do you?


_____________________________

Panda, panda, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?


(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Common-law Right to Travel - 1/18/2010 12:25:47 AM   
ThatDamnedPanda


Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

FR
Once again the answer is simple....you have the right to travel on the public roads....if you don't wish to get a driver's license and registration, etc. then you are free to walk, or ride a horse, or use one of those Amish buggies. Nowhere in the constitution do you have the right to travel by car.



It does not say I have the right to travel by feet either!

or horse

or buggie

or pogo stick!

Fact is I have the right to travel by whatever means I chose whether that locomotion is my feet pistons or turbine or warp drive.



.


I have the right to sit in a chair and watch television, too. Does that mean I have the right to do it in your house if you're on vacation?


_____________________________

Panda, panda, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?


(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Common-law Right to Travel - 1/18/2010 12:29:29 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

No its just started and in a big way in the courts!

"...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472


of course you know that the constitution stips common law in the 5th and 7th



Just started? You quote a case from 1793 and that is "just starting?" Cars didn't even exist at that point.

Do you believe that you cannot be sovereign if you want to be?


quote:



Driving, Passengers, Vehicle, is commercial and a privilege
Travel, Guests, Automobile is NOT and is a Right


The mode with which you "travel" is not a "right." Owning and automobile is not a "right."

Its not?  Do you have anything to support that claim?


Anytime you drive a car, walk across the street, ride in a train, bus, airplane, skateboard, whatever, you could be considered to be "traveling," but if you are at the wheel of that car, you are "driving" and that is not a "right"

quote:


you see while you have the right to travel inebriated you do not have the right to injure another in person or equity which you see covers the damage side of everything you just mentioned.


It is against the law to be behind the wheel of a moving vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. It doesn't matter one bit if you call it "traveling" (yes, officer, I'm "traveling" home from the bar), you are breaking the law.

If you want to use case law to try to back up your points, try shepardizing them to make sure they are still relevant.



CASE #1: "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.
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 law 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 directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.
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 Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
CASE #4: "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.

For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:
"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."  
And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,
"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."


Other cases are even more straight forward:
"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946



Maybe you have just been programmed to believe that is the case but its not the case when the battles go to court.


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to LafayetteLady)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Common-law Right to Travel - 1/18/2010 12:33:56 AM   
Ialdabaoth


Posts: 1073
Joined: 5/4/2008
From: Tempe, AZ
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Maybe you have just been programmed to believe that is the case but its not the case when the battles go to court.


That's right! We've been educated stupid to the TRUTH of 4 CORNER DAYS, CUBES 4 QUAD EARTH- No 1 Day God.!!!!one!!eleventy!!

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Common-law Right to Travel - 1/18/2010 12:34:33 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Fact is I have the right to travel by whatever means I chose whether that locomotion is my feet pistons or turbine or warp drive.


Let's examine the logical implications of this statement, shall we?

Let's say I decide that I have the right to travel by running really quickly, with a sharpened knife stuck out in front of me in my hand. It's not my intent to stab anyone, but if someone doesn't get out of my way, that's not really my fault, is it?


There is no law on the planet that would agree that it is not your fault.

Having a gun that is loaded not not give you the authority to shoot someone either.

you can have spikes coming out of yout chariot if you want but if you injure someone you are going to pay and pay and pay.....  


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Ialdabaoth)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Common-law Right to Travel - 1/18/2010 12:37:10 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

FR
Once again the answer is simple....you have the right to travel on the public roads....if you don't wish to get a driver's license and registration, etc. then you are free to walk, or ride a horse, or use one of those Amish buggies. Nowhere in the constitution do you have the right to travel by car.



It does not say I have the right to travel by feet either!

or horse

or buggie

or pogo stick!

Fact is I have the right to travel by whatever means I chose whether that locomotion is my feet pistons or turbine or warp drive.



.


I have the right to sit in a chair and watch television, too. Does that mean I have the right to do it in your house if you're on vacation?



Thats correct you have the right to watch television on any property you own but if you want to park your ass in front of mine on MY property that is a privilege and requires my permission.


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to ThatDamnedPanda)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Common-law Right to Travel - 1/18/2010 12:40:05 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

you see while you have the right to travel  inebriated...



Yes. But you do not have the right to operate a motor vehicle while inebriated. You don't seriously believe any of this shit makes any sense at all, do you?



sure it makes sense.  It distinguishes between rights and privileges.

I dont think people understand the difference.




_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to ThatDamnedPanda)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Common-law Right to Travel - 1/18/2010 12:46:42 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rockspider

These free people. They seem to wanna be free to use the infrastructure everybody created without adhering to the same rules as the rest. I wonder what the jackass would say if i used his car as a shithouse claiming it was my common law right to shit where i felt like.


No one is claiming they can shit anywhere.

If everybody created that infrastructure does that mean the free person did not?  Just the slaves?

How did you connect the infrastructure to the rules of use and how did you separate the free person from it and bond the slaves to it?

.


< Message edited by Real0ne -- 1/18/2010 12:48:11 AM >


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to rockspider)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Common-law Right to Travel - 1/18/2010 4:08:27 AM   
Louve00


Posts: 1674
Joined: 2/1/2009
Status: offline
I don't know.  At the end of your Youtube clip, the kid even stated that the officers he was dealing with were "peacemaker officers".  They did not lean more towards your typical "law enforcement officer."  Had those officers chose to uphold the laws of their district, it could have gone a whole helluva lot more uglier for the one making that video and he admitted it, himself.  If they were in a "law enforcement" mode.  They could have easily enough indeed (as Arpig pointed out), sent the traveller off on foot, since travelling on foot, or by any other means than by an automobile without a license was illegal on public streets.  Its not that travelling is an issue.  Travelling illegally is the issue.  And if you are going to travel without knowing the laws, you're likely subject to the moods and responses of the law enforement officers you run into.  They are there to "enforce the law".  Having the right to travel is not at all the same thing as breaking the law in order to travel.  You don't have a right to break laws, and twist laws to your amusement, or to prove a point just for kicks and giggles. 

< Message edited by Louve00 -- 1/18/2010 4:10:18 AM >


_____________________________

For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearance, as though they were realities and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are. - Niccolo Machiavelli

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Common-law Right to Travel - 1/18/2010 6:43:40 AM   
thornhappy


Posts: 8596
Joined: 12/16/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it. Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105

A State [or the US] may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal Constitution. Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 U.S (1943)


The government doesnt have to follow the rules just those who consented to be governed :)


Are either of the cases you quoted currently in effect?  Not seen as obsolete, overturned, not applicable anymore?  Sometimes stuff will be on the books, but a judge would laugh you out of the courtroom for using it.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Common-law Right to Travel - 1/18/2010 6:44:38 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
There's a reason many people are denied entry to law school.

(in reply to thornhappy)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Common-law Right to Travel - 1/18/2010 7:12:04 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

I don't know.  At the end of your Youtube clip, the kid even stated that the officers he was dealing with were "peacemaker officers".  They did not lean more towards your typical "law enforcement officer."  Had those officers chose to uphold the laws of their district, it could have gone a whole helluva lot more uglier for the one making that video and he admitted it, himself.  If they were in a "law enforcement" mode.  They could have easily enough indeed (as Arpig pointed out), sent the traveller off on foot, since travelling on foot, or by any other means than by an automobile without a license was illegal on public streets.  Its not that travelling is an issue.  Travelling illegally is the issue.  And if you are going to travel without knowing the laws, you're likely subject to the moods and responses of the law enforement officers you run into.  They are there to "enforce the law".  Having the right to travel is not at all the same thing as breaking the law in order to travel.  You don't have a right to break laws, and twist laws to your amusement, or to prove a point just for kicks and giggles. 


I didnt notice that at the end I will have to listen again.  I think they can pull dual duty in upper canada.

Police are names such as they are "policy" enforcers.  They enforce the public policy which is the democratic side.

The law however trumps policy, and policy that is in violation or is contrary to the law is null and void. 

Law is the republic side.

Just like if you know and understand how to conduct a common law tribunal contrary to what I know T believes is in fact still in effect as long as the constitution is not abrogated you can overule their code with law. (and even if it were it would then default to the magna charta.)

Thats not to say they wont claim slicing the constitution up is "constitutional".

Which it is not.

Did you put driving codes in your constitution as an amendment?  NO

To the best of my knowledge no state has.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

There's a reason many people are denied entry to law school.


theres a reason judges are being pulled from the bench and attorneys can no longer be bonded too.

Its people who know the difference between code and law.


quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it. Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105

A State [or the US] may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal Constitution. Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 U.S (1943)


The government doesnt have to follow the rules just those who consented to be governed :)


Are either of the cases you quoted currently in effect?  Not seen as obsolete, overturned, not applicable anymore?  Sometimes stuff will be on the books, but a judge would laugh you out of the courtroom for using it.



Well you would have to show those cases being overturned.  Making the claim does not get you to much mileage.
I put up my support you need to do the same if you want to stand up and be counted.

That and how does a legislative court overturn a law?

(Notice I did not use the term "constitutional" law, I said law)


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Louve00)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Common-law Right to Travel - 1/18/2010 7:16:43 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

judges are being pulled from the bench and attorneys can no longer be bonded too.

Its people who know the difference between code and law.


Specific examples?

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Common-law Right to Travel - 1/18/2010 7:29:09 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

judges are being pulled from the bench and attorneys can no longer be bonded too.

Its people who know the difference between code and law.


Specific examples?


Well that is sort of hard for me to do becuase its done on the private side and I would need to disclose names etc.

You do know there is private and public law I assume?

An attorney no longer being bondable or administrative judge stepping down, elected judge as a lame duck until re-election is the way it is done.

Its done by liquidation of their bond.

If you understand the process I expect that sufficinetly answers your question.



_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Common-law Right to Travel - 1/18/2010 7:30:28 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
Ah.

Another claim with no evidence.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Common-law Right to Travel Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

3.589