Right to Travel? Nedd a Driving Lic', I think Not

U.S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Roads
https://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-necessary-to-drive-automobile-on-public-highwaysstreets/

OK its from the US but even so, there is case law here if I can find it, that establishes our right to travel without a license.

U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS

   “The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”

Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the 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 the 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 purpose of life and business.” –

Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”

Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”

I agree with the principle,However Americans have a clearly defined constitution.
We have ancient laws and God given rights .I think using some of the wording
in their caselaw would would be extreemly detrimental here.
As you know LS some of those words if we used them would put us right
into the position they want us in.

daveiron wrote:I think using some of the wording in their caselaw would would be extreemly detrimental here.
As you know LS some of those words if we used them would put us right into the position they want us in.

yes of course DI, 'citizen' for example?

Yes LS , citizen is a prime example. So many in the US are proud to be classed
as such.

LionsShare wrote:U.S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Roads

That case was all about whether the the correct process had been followed in revoking Mr Thompson's driving licence (referred to as "permit"). The court found it had not and returned the case for trial. How can that be interpreted as saying the licence wasn't needed?

flyingfish wrote:

LionsShare wrote:U.S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Roads

That case was all about whether the the correct process had been followed in revoking Mr Thompson's driving licence (referred to as "permit"). The court found it had not and returned the case for trial. How can that be interpreted as saying the licence wasn't needed?

FF good point, but.....

when 007 goes to PM/King for his lic' to kill. What is the real crime killing or killing without a lic'? I know this argument has been banded about too many times but still is more than relavent.

No one especially a legal entity called a company can grant a lic' to anyone for anything. Follow all the threads on this site about 'Know Who You Are'. we are all soverign - capable of self determination & requires no one unless asked for, to look after thier interests (Trusts?)