Replies

Gee, you think after Waco and Ruby Ridge, law enforcement might have a clue.

Actually, my thought is that this is PRECISELY why it went down as it did! Given that the police were going to arrest him, and that he had resisted in the past, and the debacles at Waco and Ruby Ridge, they made it a point to do it away from his house, so that his family wouldn't get caught up in it. If it's a given that the guy needed to be arrested (warrants existed), and it's a given that they guy had threatened others with a gun (the purpose of the warrant), and it's a given that things like Waco and Ruby Ridge want to be avoided....what other routes were available to the sheriffs?

That's just what he tried to do. Unfortunately, the government would not allow him to do that by preventing him to adequately put on his case....

Perhaps you are correct. From what I gathered at his website, he collected information stating the unconstitutionality of taxes, and perhaps presented it to the government. But I didn't see any references to a trial. At a minimum, allowing your arrest to be tried on tax evasion gives the government no choice but to get your side heard. If the charge is tax evasion, a court can't not allow Constitutional evidence in their defence. The only way to avoid that being brought up in court is to drop the charges....then he's off the hook!

Maybe that happened, and I just couldn't find it on the website.

A license by definition, is the authority to do something whihc would be otherwise illegal. Now if youre talking about an 18-wheeler hauling commerce, thats one thing. But my own personal body, that's another.

I think you missed my point. I might even concede that there is a "right to travel"....but still, not sure that means you have the "right" to travel by any particular means. He was perfectly free to travel by foot, bus, train, airline, even horse for travel from house to town. So, as I see it, there was not any impingement on his travel, merely one mode of travel. Hell, he can also legaly travel in a car...as a passenger. In fact, given that he drove down to the sheriffs mess, it appears to me that even though he didn't have a drivers license, it didn't impact his driving at all (of course, if caught, he would be subject to fines, etc).

I guess I also have to ask....if you also believe that a drivers license is unconstitutional or otherwise infringes upon your rights...what's the full scoop if it's done away with? There are a number of purposes, reasons or certifications behind the drivers license. Do you then agree that there is no training required to operate a motor vehicle? If you don't need a license, do you believe that 3 year olds should be able to drive? How does this "right to travel" include the right to operate a motor vehicle? Should we do away with all controls on motor vehicles since they "limit travel"...no speed limits, no state inspections, etc?

I admit I don't have the sources handy. But there are many and they do apply to autos. Both the Declaration and Constitution don't mention "right to travel" because it was so well established in the English Common Law (which our system was based upon) that it was not needed to be stated. Look it up.

Here I'll defer back to you. I cannot look up something of which I don't know it's source. You seem to know the source, so if you can find it, I'd like to see it. And frankly, I can see no way in which elements of English Common Law that predate our constitution could possibly include references to the right to travel by auto, when the term automobile wasn't invented until 1889 (according the Merriam Webster dictionary online) and the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Perhaps you meant the right to travel was from Common Law, but later US courts upheld (late 19th, early 20th century?) that this right applied to autos. At least point me towards what source and what I need to look for in order to look it up.

"The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel along the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the road and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle. House v. Cramer, 112 N.W.3; 134 Iowa 374 (1907)

Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road. This right of the people to the use of the public streets of a city is so well established and so universally recognized in this country, that it has become part of the alphabet of fundamental rights of the citizen. While the tyranny of the American system of government very largely consists in the action of the municipal authorities, this right has not yet been questioned or attempted to be abridged. There can be no question, then, but that a citizen riding on a bicycle in that part of the street devoted to the passage of vehicles, is but exercising his legal right to its use, and a city ordinance that attempts to forbid such use of that part of a public street would be held void as agianst common rights. Swift v. City of Topeka , 43 Kan. 671, 674 (1890)

Personal liberty, which is guaranteed to every citizen under our Constitution and laws, consists of the right of locomotion, - to go where one pleases, and when, and to do that which may lead to one's business or pleasure, only so far restrained as the rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. One may travel along the public highways or in public places ***These are rights which existed long before our Consitution, and we have taken just pride in their maintenance, making them a part of the fundamental law of the land. Pinkerton v. Verberg, 78 Mich. 573, 584, 44 N.W. 579 (1889)

The right to operate a motor vehicle (an automobile) upon the public streets is not a mere privilege. It is a right or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions. Adams V. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d, 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966)

The right of a citizen to travel upon public highways ***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 purposes of life and business. ***The right aforesaid, being fundamental, are constitutional rights. Teche Lines v. Danforth, 12 So.2d 784, 787 (Miss. 1943)

I have pages of court cases establishing the right to travel by vehicle (automobile) as a inherent, fundamental, Constitutional RIGHT - not a privledge.

You would be wise to research and understand exactly what a license is.