SCOTUS: Drivers License not required...

There's gotta be more to this...

____________________________________________________________

http://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-necessary-to-drive-automobile-on-public-highwaysstreets/

U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS

“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”

Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the 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 the 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 purpose of life and business.” –

Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”

Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”

Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of 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). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”

Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”

Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads 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; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.

Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.”

Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;

Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”

-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”

-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”

-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 “Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled” – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 ”

The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.”

, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”

It says if conducting yourself in an orderly and decent matter you don't need one, but if you break the law you need a license I guess. This can be used at a DWI check point to not show a license.

cruedi - , and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”

It says if conducting yourself in an orderly and decent matter you don't need one, but if you break the law you need a license I guess. This can be used at a DWI check point to not show a license.

I'm sure that would go over well if the cops were conducting a checkpoint.

Wait, wut? Phone Post 3.0

So fuck my suspension, get out there and be somebody?

Pretty much you don't need a license that is unless the state your driving in requires one. Which all states do. So this is not really big news. There is no federal law regarding a drivers license. Only state licensing requirements. So if you intend to drive on a state road you need a license. Why this is being debated by Scotus is beyond me. It's common sense. Again another example of a waste of tax dollars. Phone Post 3.0

Where is the SCOTUS ruling? None of those cases are SCOTUS cases except the Arthur v. Morgan one, which has nothing to do with licensing.

The Thompson v. Smith case is from the Oklahoma Supreme Court, not SCOTUS. And even in that case, the Oklahoma court stated that cities in OK could regulate the right by issuing permits in the interest of public safety and welfare.

Your name should be ahmadumass Phone Post 3.0

The site owner must be one of EY's mentors; make a provocative/inflammatory statement, follow it up with pages and pages of text that don't really support your idiotic position, then arrogantly pretend you've won. Phone Post 3.0

There is that guy on YouTube that pulls this shit with Mobil home and he cops don't seem to do shit.

He tells them that it's his right and because he never registered his car he doesn't need a license or some shit

Crazy IMo Phone Post 3.0

Pat Giles - Your name should be ahmadumass Phone Post 3.0

Oh you're so cool and edgy... You must bring all the chicks to the Yu-Gi-Oh card games.

Stea1th - There is that guy on YouTube that pulls this shit with Mobil home and he cops don't seem to do shit.

He tells them that it's his right and because he never registered his car he doesn't need a license or some shit

Crazy IMo Phone Post 3.0

SOmething similar happened on Breaking Bad. You can't search an RV as you would a vehicle because it is a "domicile" or thats what the tv said.

amadeus -
Pat Giles - Your name should be ahmadumass Phone Post 3.0

Oh you're so cool and edgy... You must bring all the chicks to the Yu-Gi-Oh card games.
Whats yu gee oh? Phone Post 3.0

dizz - Where is the SCOTUS ruling? None of those cases are SCOTUS cases except the Arthur v. Morgan one, which has nothing to do with licensing.

The Thompson v. Smith case is from the Oklahoma Supreme Court, not SCOTUS. And even in that case, the Oklahoma court stated that cities in OK could regulate the right by issuing permits in the interest of public safety and welfare.


This.

pfsjkd - The site owner must be one of EY's mentors; make a provocative/inflammatory statement, follow it up with pages and pages of text that don't really support your idiotic position, then arrogantly pretend you've won. Phone Post 3.0

And that.

Typical nonsense.

amadeus -
cruedi - , and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”

It says if conducting yourself in an orderly and decent matter you don't need one, but if you break the law you need a license I guess. This can be used at a DWI check point to not show a license.

I'm sure that would go over well if the cops were conducting a checkpoint.

Yeah. That's a good way to get shot. Phone Post

Sounds like one of those Sovereign Citizen wack jobs trying to get their ignorant footsoldiers arrested by police so they can have something to be outraged about.

^^^^ that

Good. Drivers licenses or any ID for that matter are racist.

Trust - 


There is a right to travel, but like any right it is subject to reasonable restrictions.  A license may have been seen as unreasonable back when there were far fewer car on the road, and when roads were nothing like that are today.   But today things are different; vehicles go much fasters partly because the roads are much better, there are hundreds of millions of passenger vehicles on the roads now.  We have complex traffic control systems.   So it doesn't seem like an unreasonable restriction that people prove they can safely operate a vehicle to operate it on public roads.  You still don't need a license to operate on private lands/roads.  



 


Giving away other peoples basic liberties is always unreasonable.