Originally posted by Hefficide
One of the people I have to deal with in my real life is a firm believer in this stuff. It's rather funny. He and I will have heated and drawn out
debates about it - standing in my front yard. He will tell me over and over again that he needs no drivers license, nor tag, nor insurance for his
brand new truck - due to the commerce clause. He brags that every local cop assures him that he's right and that they are on his side. He brags that
local judges support him and that even the insurance company has told him he is right.
Concerning the driving issue…..
TO TRAVEL IS A "RIGHT," NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED "PRIVILEGE”
Even if we wanted to trade are inalienable rights for man-made privilege, we cannot.
How about some precedent proving this, No problem, here you go.
The "RIGHT" to travel is a part of the liberty of which the Citizen "cannot be deprived" without due process of the law under the 5th Amendment.
See: Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125
Even the legislature has no power to deny to a Citizen the "RIGHT" to travel upon the roadways and transport his property in the ordinary course of
his business or pleasure, through this "RIGHT" might be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. See: Chicago Motor
Coach v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 22
"Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, sign, etc., NOT a privilege that requires permission, i.e.; licensing, mandatory
insurance, vehicle registration, etc..
The use of the roadways for the purpose of travel and transportation is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE, but a "COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" of which the
public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived. (Emphasis added) See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, supra; See: Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E.
934; See: Boone v. Clark, 214 S. W. 607;
The term "Public Highway," in its broad popular sense, includes toll roads, streets, highways-and roadways which the public has a "RIGHT" to use
even conditionally, though in a strict legal sense it is restricted to roads which are wholly public. See: Weirich v. State, 140 Wis. 98.
The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public roadways 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. See: Thompson v. Smith, supra.
The streets and roadways belong to the public, for the use of the public in the ordinary and customary manner. See: Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wn. 657;
168 P. 516;
The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, obviously
differs radically from that of one who makes the highways his principal place of business and uses it for private gain ... See: State v. City of
I haven’t even scratched the surface of case law refuting what you are saying to your neighbor. Please do not tell me that precedent and rulings by
the Supreme Court do not count either.