It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." Itis interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.www.usconstitution.net...
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.www.apfn.org...
You waive those rights, at the DMV. Pretty slick the way they do it. The DMV can have my license back. Don't want it. Don't need it. I'll let someone else drive for me.
"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."
The DMV can have my license back. Don't want it. Don't need it. I'll let someone else drive for me.
Thousands of Nevada immigrants showed up at Department of Motor Vehicle offices Thursday to obtain driver authorization cards under a new law that made the state the 11th nationally to offer driving privileges to people in the country illegally.
Taissa
I wonder what these people will want next? Blood sample? Finger prints?
2nd
BABYBULL24
Uh...meanwhile in Nevada:
Thousands Of Illegal Immigrants Show Up At DMV Offices To Obtain Driver Authorization Cards
Thousands of Nevada immigrants showed up at Department of Motor Vehicle offices Thursday to obtain driver authorization cards under a new law that made the state the 11th nationally to offer driving privileges to people in the country illegally.
LINK
Their only alternative will be to forgo access to secure federal facilities or forgo commercial air travel. For example, they can travel by train."
originally posted by: METACOMET
According to the ACLU 25 states are rejecting, and 15 have passed laws exempting their citizens from the "Real I.D" act.
originally posted by: NickK3
In reality if 15 + 25 = 40 States were really against this, the could amend the Constitution to make it illegal. To amend the Constitution requires ¾ of all the states or 38 of them...
If 40 States really wanted to, they could actually outlaw the DHS or any other similar federal police force! A change to the Constitution through a Constitutional Convention is law above anything the federal government can resist.
The states formed the Federal Government – they can change it quite legally and the Feds can't do a thing about it.
-9th Amendment to the united states constitution
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10th Amendment to the united states constitution
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
originally posted by: METACOMET
I like your style. However, the states and commonwealths don't have to call a con-con to repeal real-id, DHS, the IRS or any other "color of law" legislation, program or agency since the constitution never granted the legislative, executive or judicial branch the power to create ANY of them in the first place.
originally posted by: NickK3
originally posted by: METACOMET
According to the ACLU 25 states are rejecting, and 15 have passed laws exempting their citizens from the "Real I.D" act.
It will be interesting to see how far the federal government can push a majority of states.
In reality if 15 + 25 = 40 States were really against this, the could amend the Constitution to make it illegal. To amend the Constitution requires ¾ of all the states or 38 of them...
If 40 States really wanted to, they could actually outlaw the DHS or any other similar federal police force! A change to the Constitution through a Constitutional Convention is law above anything the federal government can resist.
The states formed the Federal Government – they can change it quite legally and the Feds can't do a thing about it.
And the Feds do just seem to keep pushing...
January 22, 2014
If you live in Georgia and you have had to renew your drivers license in the last couple of years you know that for the first time in the history of the state you are being asked to present special documents in order to obtain a new license. And it is a big inconvenience for many to have to purchase a new birth certificate or dig out a marriage license or divorce decree in order to renew a driver's license they have held for years. But blame it on the 9/11 terrorists.
USA Today points out on Jan. 22 that Georgia is but one of the states having to inconvenience their citizens because four of the 19 terrorists in 2001 managed to get on board a commercial airline using a state-issued drivers license when they should not have been able to do so.
But some states are still refusing to become compliant to the Real ID Act, even though it goes into effect in April 2014. And the citizens who live in their states may be unable to board commercial airlines as a result. Those states include Alaska, Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma and Washington state.
www.examiner.com...