Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: right to travel

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    there are many court cases supporting this as well. if you have the right to travel why get a license? i have one but i have not surrendered it due to not being able to comply with other laws, insurance mainly. now while insurance can be said to be a safety issue on the grounds that you secure your income while incapacitated from a wreck, or you secure your victim's income if you wreck them, is it not an ex post facto law? if it is, it is unconstitutional as well. section 16 of the texas state constitution(1876) says: 'No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or any law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be made.' the republic of texas as well as the territories and other republics who joined the the usa made a contract for statehood. so all rightsacknowledged,both explicitly or implicitly enumerated, in the federal constitutionare part of that contract. all laws made incrogruent to either letter or spirit would and are null and void.i have quotes from cases i will post later.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    San Antonio, ,
    Posts
    181

    Post imported post

    Not having a driver's license does not, in point of fact, restrict you from traveling. You can always utilize public transportation in one of its many forms, ride a bicycle or horse, or even walk.

    The driver's license serves two purposes - a) to certify that you are aware of the regulations that govern the operation of a motor vehicle on public roads, and b) that you agree to be legally and civilly bound by those regulations while operating said motor vehicle.

    The "right to travel" is merely stating that you can move about the country, crossing municipality borders without restriction.



  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    by the same reasoning, are you advocating we should all be licensed to keep and carry arms? scanner's not working otherwise i would show cause. right to travel applies to transportation for hire as well as personnally owned vehicles. the stipulation i have found was that we take care of the roads. my dad pays license fees, registration fees and county fees. all three have road and/or bridge fees included. yet if he were to drive without a license he would get a ticket, and would more than likely have to pay the ticket.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    San Antonio, ,
    Posts
    181

    Post imported post

    I wasn't "advocating" anything. I was explaining that not having a state driver's license does not restrict you from traveling in-country, because there are indeed other ways to travel.

    A state gun license implies you don't have the right to have a gun unless you're approved by the state. That's quite a bit different.

    IMHO, the individual states do not have the authority to override the Constitution.



  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    A drivers license is a license to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways and nothing to do with travel. You are free to travel in a multitude of different ways including riding in a car without a license. You are required to have a license to perform surgery, engineer a bridge across the public highway, practice law or hundreds of other things. Having a drivers license and being able to travel are two entirely different things.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    are they? operating a motorvehicle is the same as operating your legs. if you move positions, you are indeed traveling. motorvehicles are the conveyance of the day. did you need a license to ride a horse? conduct a team of horses drawing a wagon? conduct a team of oxen pulling a wagon? no you did not nor do you. by these same measures they are infringing upon all of our rights. what is good for one is not necessarily good for all and vice versa. say the government, since we no longer govern them as we should, say that you cannot marry or have children with out a license? would you then see that their aim is to control the 'mob'. by doing it increments few see the end, those that stay apprised see where this winding road leads. by requiring licensing, you keep those young men and women, who have not yet learned the shades of grey, from doing what we should. if wewould stand against the government or any other transgressors, our right to flock in force to the site and our right to bring to bear that which may be neccessary must not be infringed. for if it is, we shall have little if any affect in doing our duty. as we get older we condone far more than we should. peace and freedomare only a good thing when it is true. in peace and freedom there are no grumblings from the masses that oh he/she gets to do this, why can't the rest. are not all men equal, to share equally of liberty and blessings and of peace?

    http://www.freeenterprisesociety.com..._to_travel.htm



  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    San Antonio, ,
    Posts
    181

    Post imported post

    mike75925 wrote:
    are they? did you need a license to ride a horse? conduct a team of horses drawing a wagon? conduct a team of oxen pulling a wagon? no you did not nor do you. by these same measures they are infringing upon all of our rights. what is good for one is not necessarily good for all and vice versa. say the government, since we no longer govern them as we should, say that you cannot marry or have children with out a license? would you then see that their aim is to control the 'mob'. by doing it increments few see the end, those that stay apprised see where this winding road leads. by requiring licensing, you keep those young men and women, who have not yet learned the shades of grey, from doing what we should. if wewould stand against the government or any other transgressors, our right to flock in force to the site and our right to bring to bear that which may be neccessary must not be infringed. for if it is, we shall have little if any affect in doing our duty. as we get older we condone far more than we should. peace and freedomare only a good thing when it is true. in peace and freedom there are no grumblings from the masses that oh he/she gets to do this, why can't the rest. are not all men equal, to share equally of liberty and blessings and of peace?

    http://www.freeenterprisesociety.com..._to_travel.htm
    One guy being pedantic about travel does not, a grumbling mass, make.

    A drivers license is certification that you are aware of and agree to abide by the laws which dictate the use of a motor vehicle. You are certainly able to drive without one (if you feel so inclined), but not having one doesn't impede your ability to travel. The right to travel merely guarantees you the ability to move freely about the country without having to provide paperwork to cross state borders.

    I really don't know how many different ways I can overstate this.

    EDIT----------

    Oh, I see. The link you posted explains everything...


  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    you might be right if you wouldn't suffer your vehicle being impounded and getting a ticket. how do we satisfy this requirement with our guns? we teach our children, friends and other family members proper use of them. what is the best weapon to have? a gun right? depending on the range of your intended target, dictates pistol, rifle or even the number of targets dictate machine gun, grenade, claymore. say you live in brownsville tx, and you wish to discuss your grievance with washington. are you gonna take a horse, motorcycle, car, train or plane? the best would be plane then working back down the line. if your rights are infringed so that you may not travel to washington, by any of these means or the most effective means, you can not effect change or you may be too late in arriving. how do you vouchsafe your liberty and that of others? you cannot.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510

    Post imported post

    Arguing that motor vehicles are a modern invention, and thus operator licenses are legitimate, is no different than arguing that the 2nd Amendment only protects flintlock muskets from the late 18th Century, and that licenses should be required for modern firearms.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    which way do you lean KB?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    There is no law in any state that I know of that says you must have a drivers license to operate a motor vehicle. I operated cars, trucks, tractors etc. totally legally from the time I was 6 years old. I finally got my drivers license when I was 14. This meant I could then operate a car or truck on a public highway. Before then I could only operate the tractor, mule and wagon and my feet and legs. You don't want to get a license then fine bu stay off the paved roads and travel like they did back in the horse and buggy days on dirt roads. Or if you want to use a horse and buggy, you don't need a license for that in most places. But you will need a slow moving vehicle sign on the back of it.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    you are funny. i have paid the necessary fees for road maintenance. as such i will go where i please, when i please and how i please

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510

    Post imported post

    mike75925 wrote:
    which way do you lean KB?
    I lean towards liberty: that no government permission should be ever be needed to travel anywhere, by any means, including across arbitrary lines on the ground called "borders".

    Feel free to extrapolate that to include owning and bearing arms: no government permission should ever be required to make, buy, sell, own, possess, or carrya .22 derringer, SMG, automatic rifle, heavy machine gun, howitzer, or 16" naval rifle.



  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    kent, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    474

    Post imported post

    Speaking of the right to travel I want the right to have my Manufactuers Certificate of Origin so I dont have tp register my car. Its complete bs supposedly PA and Ohio destroys them every 7 years.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    San Antonio, ,
    Posts
    181

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    There is no law in any state that I know of that says you must have a drivers license to operate a motor vehicle. I operated cars, trucks, tractors etc. totally legally from the time I was 6 years old. I finally got my drivers license when I was 14. This meant I could then operate a car or truck on a public highway. Before then I could only operate the tractor, mule and wagon and my feet and legs. You don't want to get a license then fine bu stay off the paved roads and travel like they did back in the horse and buggy days on dirt roads. Or if you want to use a horse and buggy, you don't need a license for that in most places. But you will need a slow moving vehicle sign on the back of it.
    You're spitting into the wind here. It's probably best that you let the delusion peter out on its own. If you go to the website he linked to, you'll see why.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •