Is driving down the highway a right, or a privilege?

Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:

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.

As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others.

Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel.

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject?

Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions.

That means it is unlawful.

The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws.

The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions -- such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few -- on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?

For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue.

In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly: "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."

Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point-- that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people?

Other cases are even more straight forward:

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice."

Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24.

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."

Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.

We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason?

The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the L

Update:

go go cant read

Update 2:

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."

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."

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."

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."

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 p

Update 3:

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."

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."

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."

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."

9 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    It is a right that can not be taken unless you enter a contract with the DMV. Then you unknowenly relinquish your rights. If you knew ahead of time you had the right to travel down the road without tickets, you would not have entered that contract.

  • Ivette
    Lv 4
    5 years ago

    Driving on public roadways is a privilege the state gives. Every road could be a toll road. However, since that usage came into effect, the concept of "rights you can buy" emerged. An example is the "right to drill for oil" on/under someone's land. The landowner can buy, sell, and lease that "right". The broader concept to read about would be "mineral rights". The ideas of right and privilege start getting confused when you don't know whether rights come from the person, or from the State (the Government). If rights come from the individual, then the State gives you the privilege of driving on its roads.

  • 1 decade ago

    Lol. You're so full of crap. It is not a right to even have a driver's license, as you must pass tests, maintain a good driving record, and follow driving laws in order to keep it

    That is why many ex-drivers do not have licenses now. They have lost their PRIVILEGE to drive Ask a person with a few DUIs if they have a RIGHT to drive now

  • Hmmm
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    I believe you are missing a fundamental distinction which we have all accepted to be the law. We do not allow people who do not know how to drive a 4000 pound car at 60MPH to do so. You are welcome to walk, or ride a bike down the road all you like. However you have to have proof of your training to drive. It's an interesting legal argument but I doubt it would hold up in court. The SCOTUS would be unlikely to even bother hearing it.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Privilege. You have the right to travel freely in search of happiness but you can walk there if you don't have a DL.That is if you are a natural or nationalized CITIZEN.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    You have the right to use the public highway system you just don't have the right to do so at 150mph and endanger my family.

  • Person
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    Privilege, you can get around other ways.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It's a privilege.

  • I Z
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    privilege

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.