Some Interesting Court Rulings On Driving!

[NarrowPathPilgrim]

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

My fellow Americans, I encourage you to research, it is TOTALLY LEGAL to drive without a license! I drive without one and so do many of my friends! And though I haven't had an opportunity to test it in court myself, many of my friends have and they have never lost!
One of my friends just won a law suit for 1.5 million against two police just because they pulled him over (Legally it constitutes arrest without a warrant)!
I just started a website to help fight for freedom, I will have more info on my website soon so check it often! www.FightingForLiberty.org

[mash1cdna]

I'm not a lawyer; however, driving is considered a privilege. Definition of privilege: "A special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all. (Word Web)." Living in Wisconsin, or any state, we need to abide by driving regulations/laws to keep this privilege. That's why there are points, fines, and jail time. When the laws are not followed, the individual is penalized, possibly loosing driving privileges. Drunk driving is a good example. Age requirement to begin driving is another example. So, my understanding, driving is not an inalienable right when your drivers licence can be rightfully taken away when laws are not followed. Is my reasoning correct?

[NarrowPathPilgrim]

I'm not a lawyer;

Good, Thats another very interesting topic.

however, driving is considered a privilege.

Driving is a Right for a sovereign because a sovereign is not under the law.
However, if you are a person, if you live in the UNITED STATES, if you use a zip code, if you admit that your name is spelled in all higher case, or any of a number of other things then driving does become a privilege for you.
Because the word "person" in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. (See e.g. 1 U.S.C. sec 1. Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F.2d 417, 425.)
The "UNITED STATES" is a corporation.
The Zip code identifies you in a federal zone.
Your name, spelled in upper case is a fictitious Alter Ego who isn't sovereign.
If you study it you will find that they use all those tricks to deceive you and "Legally" remove your sovereign rights.

Definition of privilege: "A special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all. (Word Web)."

Black's Law Dictionary defines "privilege" as: "A particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class beyond the common advantages of other citizens. . . . A right, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, against or beyond the course of the law."

Living in Wisconsin, or any state, we need to abide by driving regulations/laws to keep this privilege. That's why there are points, fines, and jail time. When the laws are not followed, the individual is penalized, possibly loosing driving privileges. Drunk driving is a good example. Age requirement to begin driving is another example. So, my understanding, driving is not an inalienable right when your drivers licence can be rightfully taken away when laws are not followed. Is my reasoning correct?

Well, it isn't an inalienable right if they can take it away, but I explained above how they can take it away, they can't take it away from a sovereign, they can only take it away from a "Person" without rights.
If you use your sovereign rights and let them know that your not the ignorant “person” they think you are they will have to back down.


"Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts."
Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)