Driving is not a Privilege. Driving is a Right. 3961

Doug

Doug, what still shows is your inability to refute my evidence. Your attempts to do so, for what reasons I do not know, simply fall flat when carefully examined. True, the plantif lost his case, but not for the reason you claim, not because he didn't have a Right of Transit, but because a Commerce Tax doesn't obstruct with his Right of Transit. More in context, here again is my evidence:

--------------------- "On behalf of plaintiff in error it is insisted that paragraph 10 is in conflict with the 14th Amendment because it restricts the right of the citizen to move from one state to another, and so abridges his privileges and immunities; impairs the natural right to labor; and is clbutt legislation, discriminating arbitrarily and without reasonable basis.

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.

And so as to the right to contract. The liberty, of which the deprivation without due process of law is forbidden, 'means not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation, and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned; . . . although it may be conceded that this right to contract in relation to persons or property or to do business within the jurisdiction of the state may be regulated and sometimes prohibited when the contracts or business conflict with the policy of the state as contained in its statutes.' Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 589, 591 , 41 S. L. ed. 835, 836, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 427; Holden v. Hardy, 168 plus 1 U.S. 366 , 42 L. ed. 780, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 383.

But this act is a taxing act, by the 2d section of which taxes are levied on occupations, including, by paragraph 10, the occupation of hiring persons to labor elsewhere. If it can be said to affect the freedom of egress from the state, or the freedom of contract, it is only incidentally and remotely. The 179 U.S. 270, 275 individual laborer is left free to come and go at pleasure, and to make such contracts as he chooses, while those whose business it is to induce persons to enter into labor contracts and to change their location, though left free to contract, are subjected to taxation in respect of their business as other citizens are." ---------------------

In the first paragraph of this quoted portion, the judge explains that the plantiff is attempting to claim exemption from a commerce tax by claiming it obstructs, among other things, his Right of Transit. In the second paragraph, the judge explains that we do indeed have a Right of Transit Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways. In the third paragraph, the judge goes on further to say that we also have a Right of Contract (the other things the plantiff claimed the commerce tax obstructed) unless "the contracts or business conflict with the policy of the state". In the forth paragraph, the judge explains that the act the plantiff claims to be exempt from is a commerce taxing act, and does not obstruct his Right of Transit Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways.

Therefore, Doug, even though the plantiff did loose his case where he claimed to be exempt from a commerce tax because, among other things, it obstructed his Right of Transit, he did not loose because he had no Right of Transit, and in fact, the judge even went so far as to explain quite explicitly that we do indeed have the Right of Transit Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways, but instead he lost because a Commerce Tax does not obstruct with his Right of Transit Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways.

Doug, what leaves me wondering is why you are so stubborn, even scared, to learning you have a Right you were previously unaware of. Why would anyone be afraid to discover they have a Right they weren't previously aware of? That makes no sense to me. It's not like I'm claiming you have a Right to Rape, Pillage or liquidate. It's not like I'm claiming you have a Right to Violate another's Rights. No. I'm only attempting to prove you have a Right to Travel on Public Highways using the Transit Ordinarily Used.

Although I do take exception to certain of your behaviors here, I don't believe you to be completely malicitious, and I still believe there is a small twinkle of thought behind your writings. Use that twinkle to carefully guide you though this issue. Study the evidence very carefully. At least you have the twinkle to guide you through step by step.

Others here, such as Ed Pirrero and Thomas Schafer, don't appear to have that twinkle. While Thomas is merely stumbling around in the dark, without even a clue as to the origin of Rights, Ed is viciously swinging about in the darkness caring not who he may strike in his blind outrage.

Then, there are those, such as Motorhead Lawyer and jaybird, who even if they are able to see the way, prefer the dark path as a source of excitement or thrill, where they convince themself they can claim expemption for their behavior due to their choosing the darker path.

So, Doug, pull yourself up by your bootstrap, and apply yourself to the evidence I am presenting you with. Don't be afraid. This Right won't destroy your life.