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.
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by StoutBroux
this is a violation of one's rights to travel unmolested in public.
Originally posted by bbracken677
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by StoutBroux
this is a violation of one's rights to travel unmolested in public.
This is a right? I believe you have the right of free speech, to congregate and a few others, but I can't find this right in the Bill of Rights....
I get your point though. I find it disturbing that Police would use their authority to set up road blocks, hindering traffic, to gather "voluntary" dna samples. When asked I would reply "are you out of your mind?" even though I have nothing to hide. I do, however, have a right to privacy and I value my privacy immensely.
"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. . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values."
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. So much is conceded by the Solicitor General. In Anglo-Saxon law, that right was emerging at least as early as the Magna Carta. Chafee, Three Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787 (1956), 171-181, 187 et seq., shows how deeply engrained in our history this freedom of movement is. Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values. See Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 44; Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274; Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160. "Our nation," wrote Chafee, has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases." Id. at 197.
Freedom to travel is, indeed, an important aspect of the citizen's "liberty." We need not decide the extent to which it can be curtailed. We are first concerned with the extent, if any, to which Congress has authorized its curtailment.
This is a right? I believe you have the right of free speech, to congregate and a few others, but I can't find this right in the Bill of Rights.... I get your point though. I find it disturbing that Police would use their authority to set up road blocks, hindering traffic, to gather "voluntary" dna samples. When asked I would reply "are you out of your mind?" even though I have nothing to hide. I do, however, have a right to privacy and I value my privacy immensely.
"The right of a 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 his 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 purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will." Thompson vs. Smith, 154 S.E. 579 at 583.
"No State may convert a Right into a Privilege and require a License of Fee for the exercise of the Right" Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 373 U.S. 262