Driving is a Right 2555

jaybird

It doesn't have to say Licensing is Unconsbreastutional, as that is Understood of any Right. It only has to say it's a Right, then it is Understood that Licensing would be Unconsbreastutional.

Let's break this quote down.

"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the

territory of any state is a right secured by the 14th Amendment and by other provisions of the Consbreastution." - Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S.

The key to this is in the phrase "and the right, ordinarily, of free transit". The word "ordinarily" is an adverb, and it functions as a qualifier to the verb "transit". Others, such as John Gaquin have tried to suggest the adverb "ordinarily" functioned as a qualifier to the verb "secured", but that just doesn't hold true. If something is a Right, it is ALWAYS secured, not just Ordinarily. And, if "ordinarily" was meant to qualify the word "secured", instead of "transit", it would have been placed much closer to "secured", instead of it's close proximity to the word "transit".

That is where I interpret my phrase: "Transit Ordinarily used"

Then, there is the phrase: "is an attribute of personal liberty", and that is where I interpret my phrae "for Personal Travel"

Then, there is the phrase: "from or through the territory of any state", and that is where I interpret my phrase "on our Public Highways", as they are among the territories of states.

Also, I might add here, the phrase: "to remove from one place to another according to inclination", prompting me to enhance my interpretation from not only: "The Right of Transit Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways", but as well:

The Right of Transit Ordinarily used for Personal Travel at our Own Inclination on our Public Highways.

Now, there are those who would say we can always walk, or bike, and often that is true, but not always yet irrelivant, as Walking and Biking ARE NOT the Transit Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways.

Then, there are those who would say we can always take a bus, or hire a taxi, but that is being Transported, and my enhancement above would exclude that, as being Transported is not Traveling at one's own inclination, but rather it is being Transported at the Inclination of the Transporter. Also, we do not have a Right to be Transported, as that would require the Inclination of the Transporter. How can we have a Right to something we don't have a Right to?

I have researched this issue for a couple years now, and I am only now begining to get a firm grasp on the ramification of this US Supreme Court judgment. I am quite convinced in my interpretation of this. But, equally so, I am convinced that our state courts will not allow themself to recognize it UNTIL the citizens have first recognized. It's simply not to their benifit, as they are currently making so much money in the Traffic Enforcement business.

"Traffic". What do you think of when you hear the word "Traffic"? Most people think of Cars traveling back and forth on Highways. But, in fact, the legal definition of Traffic is "the commercial exchange of goods and services for money". Ever hear the phrase "Trafficing in Guns" or "Trafficing in Drugs"? That doesn't mean people are riding Guns and Drugs up and down our Highways. That means they are Selling Guns or Drugs. And, by the Commerce Clause of our Consbreastution, ALL Commercial enbreasties exist ONLY by the Permission of the State.

This is where the state courts snuck in Licensing Laws, by playing on a misunderstanding of the word "Traffic". By convincing us that "Travel" is "Traffic", they have convinced us it can only exist by the Permission of the State. All the Traffic Laws involving Licensing for the use of Automobiles on public Highways Trafficing, for all strict interpretations, are completely valid, because in reality, they apply only to Commercial Enbreasties, such as Taxies, Buses or Trucking Transports. But, as long as the citizens don't know any better, their ignorance only serves to benefit them. They have no reason to clarify.

That is why I told you earlier that any US Supreme Court judgment you might find which on the surface would appear to counter the one I present, in fact do not counter it, because they apply only to Commercial Traffic, and not to Personal Travel.

Well, anyway. Just keep an open mind, and consider, study and think on these things when you have the time. I don't know if you'll consider it to your personal benefit, but I do believe it to be your obligation to defend our Consbreastution, as I believe it to be my obligation as well.

I'm only here trying to return to the citizens a Right they Lost along beside our Highways.