There's a funny law in our country still pertaining to urinating on a carriage wheel on a public road. As long as it's your wheel then fine. It still exists and someone tried to use it as a defence for public urination. Who is right the law or a council of our peers? That is the argument really and law is attempting to be more proactive in upholding rights albeit with morals intertwined. For the benefit of the majority. That is where the letter of the law should fail and be bent. And I applaud it. But every case is different. Reality.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958) (a) The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 357 U. S. 125-127. Guy was being denied a passport because they thought he was a communist, regardless is a 1958 supreme court case about travel
The world is changing and with it our freedoms. I don't disagree with you on that at all. It is one rule for one and one for another and I propose a part explanation for this. If you put yourself in a position where you may be seen to be a threat or a detriment to society yes the law may be shunned to prevent you doing something. Of course there will always be unjust cases where perhaps the reasons are very borderline. Unfortunately again this is caused by a climate of fear. Life is a bit of luck and you do make it for yourself. Apologies if you lost your license I hope they let you have it back again.
I did not lose my license and I'll tell you the law yields to necessity, you can even get away with murder if it's necessary to defend your life and property, it's very narrow and specific, but possible
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html U.S. Supreme Court Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) 5. In moving from jurisdiction to jurisdiction appellees were exercising a constitutional right, and any classification which penalizes the exercise of that right, unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest, is unconstitutional. Unwed 19yr old mother of 1 pregnant with another could not work moved from one state to another to live with her mother and they tried to deny her welfare
The Alaska courts considered whether the dividend distribution law violated appellants' constitutional right to travel. The right to travel and to move from one ... https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html The Alaska courts considered whether the dividend distribution law violated appellants' constitutional right to travel. The right to travel and to move from one state to another has long been accepted, yet both the nature and the source of that right have remained obscure. See Jones v. Helms, 452 U. S. 412, 452 U. S. 417-419, and nn. 12 and 13 (1981); Shapiro v. Thompson, supra, at 394 U. S. 629-631; United States v. Guest, 383 U. S. 745, 383 U. S. 757-759 (1966). See also Z. Chafee, Three Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787, pp. 188-193 (1956). In addition to protecting persons against the erection of actual barriers to interstate movement, the right to travel, when applied to residency requirements, protects new residents of a state from being disadvantaged because of their recent migration or from otherwise being treated differently from longer term residents. In reality, right to travel analysis refers to little more than a particular application of equal protection analysis. Right to travel cases have examined, in equal protection terms, state distinctions between newcomers and longer term residents. See Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U. S. 250 (1974); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330 (1972); Shapiro v. Thompson, supra. This case also involves distinctions between residents based on when they arrived in the State, and is therefore also subject to equal protection analysis.
In 1958 the population of the world was 2.9bill. 2016 and now it's 7.4bill. I have not checked the increase in America but I'm sure it's significant. It's not going to get better.
That dont really matter, either we have the right to travel freely, or someone gets to arbitrarily convert our rights to privileges and issue fines and fees for it, if they can do that to our liberty without due process of law, our right to life will be next, and we will need license to live and pay tax on breathing
(Title 18)Section 241 reaches conspiracies specifically directed against the exercise of the constitutional right to travel freely from State to State and to use highways and ... https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html
I can't vote because I'm an American, I'm not a "US citizen" that word is offensive and racist to me, "citizen" was created so black people could have the same rights and privileges as white people, why do I need that if I'm already white and one of the people? The only way to become a citizen is to take an oath (naturalized) or born in the United States, which United States is clearly outlined as being district not more then ten square miles (DC) or territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, etc, etc unless an act of state legislation ceded (surrender) state land to United States thru purchase and I don't think that's ever happened publicly
394 US 618 "The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been ... https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html State v. French :: 1994 :: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals ... Finally, he contends that the traffic statutes involved violated his right to travel. ... to advance a claim of a constitutional right to free and unregulated travel http://law.justia.com/cases/hawaii/inte ... 317-1.html 476 US 898 The textual source of the constitutional right to travel, or, more precisely, the right of free interstate migration, though, has proved elusive. It has been variously ... https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html Isn't it funny how they say that the source or origin of our "right to travel" is elusive, when it's right there in the bill of rights, they pretend not to see it, life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness
Yea..ya know I'm just pretty sure horse-drawn carriages and early automobiles couldn't top 30 mpg....modern vehicles have the ability to exceed 100+. Drivers license proves you've been educated at some point on safe driving practices, and have demonstrated that you poses adequate driving abilities. People with physical impairments that prevent them from being able to safely operate a motor vehicle aren't granted a license, yet another safety feature. Children are not granted a license until a certain age and still must drive accompanied by an adult until they themselves reach adulthood or close to it. And if all that doesn't make you glad for them, doesn't even matter. Auto-insurnace requires you to have a valid dl to he insured. Law requires you to have Auto - insurnace, no such law protects your right to not have auto-insurance.
@OP, maybe you should emigrate? You OBVIOUSLY don't like the USA. Times change, case law is much more applicable, the laws that came in stating you must have a drivers license obviously override the constitutional right to travel. It's almost like you believe you can actually shoot a Scotsman on from the walls of York city with a crossbow and get away with it. Just cos a law hasn't been repealed doesn't mean it's still applicable.
The reason there are laws around having and maintaining your drivers licence is because there are some disgustingly pathetic and weak people that use vehicles for inappropriate reasons. Like hooning, drunk driving, etc. They kill people and damage property. You can thank them for requiring permission to use a vehicle without punishment.
You are forgetting a couple things that we went over already, that police don't have insurance to use thier cop car, they use a bond which anyone can get, "motor vehicle" is defined in title 18 section 31 "and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers and property or cargo" showing you what the department is regulating