Doug
The quote I cited as evidence:
"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an ttribute 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.
;CLEARLY has to do with our Right of Locomotion, our Right of Transit without Obstruction, our Right of Transit Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways.
The whole case doesn't provide any additional support to my arguments, nor does it discredit or nulify the quote I presented. The quote I took from the case DOES support my arguments.
The license this particular quote speaks of is a Business License, or a Commercial License. Not a License to use the Ordinary Transit for Personal Travel on Public Highways. Nowhere in this quote does it discredit or invalidate the original quote I presented.
Again, NOTHING in this invalidates or negates the original quote I presented to you. In effect, my quote and this quote together in this case is saying:
While there Undoubtedly exists a Right of Transit Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways, an Occupation Tax does not infringe on this Right.
Can you not see this is what is being said?
Exactly! Once again, with my quote, it is saying: While there Undoubtedly exists a Right of Transit Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways, an Occupation Tax does not infringe on this Right.
Pleanty. First off, the quote I cited is also cited by a number of other US Supreme Court, including:
No help or wrong help for Detroit 3966Whatever thread that you found yourself in a logical dead in was something I've long since forgotten, so your childish personal sniping really seems funny. But for those that weren't paying...
EDWARDS v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 (1941) --
NEW YORK v. O'NEILL, 359 U.S. 1 (1959) --
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL v. MARICOPA COUNTY, 415 U.S. 250 (1974) --
JONES v. HELMS, 452 U.S. 412 (1981) --
Then, there are the following quotes:
"This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our consbreastutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to Travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement." -- Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1968 plus 1) --
"The consbreastutional right to travel from one State to another, and necessarily to use the highways and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce in doing so, occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union." -- United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966) ---
"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Consbreastutional guarantee 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." -- II Am.Jur. (1st) Consbreastutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135
"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn 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." -- Slusher v. Safety Coach Transit Co., 229 Ky 731, 17 SW2d 1012
"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, 154 SE 579; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784
"The individual may stand upon his Consbreastutional Rights as a Citizen. He is enbreastled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Consbreastution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespbutt upon their rights." -- HALE v. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43 (1906) --
"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." -- Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 168 plus 1 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163
"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." -- Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579
"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
And, there are other Web Sites debating this issue:
Driver Licensing vs. the Right to Travel --
Right to Travel: --
Plus you can read my Web Site covering this issue, with more links at it's bottom.
In the future, kindly drop the directives and stick to the issue.
