U.S.

Supreme Court says

No License Necessary To Drive
Automobile On Public Highways &
Streets
by Jeffrey Phillips | Jul 21, 2015 | Constitution, Positive News

U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS

PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE
OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS
“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport
his property thereon, by horsedrawn 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. Under this constitutional guaranty 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.”
Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional
Law, section 329, page 1135 “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
“… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from
police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97
Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to
drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city
absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.”
Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary
adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the
interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the
public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the
Constitutional guarantees. . .”
Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v.
Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate
a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not
a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected
by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”
Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler
has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and
to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.”
Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an
automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the
highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public
highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.”
Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236.
“The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from
police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in
some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal.
App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of
travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The
owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of
horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.”
House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric
Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety
to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there
is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways.
The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles.
Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law
does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an
equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and
roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads
superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the
easement.”
Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says
No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets
No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A
highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass
along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta,
129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159;
Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v.
Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the
right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or
highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110
Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle
designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”
-American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH
200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6)
Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of
carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and
used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for
commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any
fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in
connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A
motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an
automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which
remuneration is received.”
-International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor
vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’”
-City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 “Thus
self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put
rather than according to the means by which they are propelled” – Ex Parte
Hoffert, 148 NW 20 ”
The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28
L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects,
and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.”
Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). “…a citizen has
the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property
thereon…” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P.
171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516,
Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 “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, 169 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 highway and to transport his
property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual
and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.” –
Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an
unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every
Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life
and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity
has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor
waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either
recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e.,
safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege
requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.”
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic
infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “Persons faced with an
unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a
prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with
impunity in exercise of such right.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court
says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public
Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely
YHVH.name 3 “The word ‘operator’ shall not include any person who
solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property
for hire or compensation.”
Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of
the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and
proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.”
Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal
RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by
the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or
original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary,
1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be
licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be
meaningless.”
City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a
thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160
P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or
power, which does not exist without it.”
Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it
clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business,
trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit,
outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no
license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business,
pleasure and transportation.”
Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a
vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and
act on the assumption that the statute is void.” –
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “With regard
particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or
protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state
police authority.” Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier
vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement
Co., 108 A. 887. “The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other
states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles
of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.”
(Paul v. Virginia). “[T]he right to travel freely from State to State … is a
right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental
action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal
right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” (U.S. Supreme Court,
Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no
place in a free world. …’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 Constitution.’
Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “Our
nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful
conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do
what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197.
Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—
14. “The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular
individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of
matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at
page 187. “a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but
is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to
answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles
have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other
vehicles.”
Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “Each
citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance
he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric
car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he
will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.”
Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary
To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary
Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court
said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of
course, is not a “statute.” A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the
public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle.
Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) 185. Automotive
vehicles are lawful means of conveyance and have equal rights upon the
streets with horses and carriages.
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 205; See also: Christy
v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31; Ward v. Meredith, 202 Ill. 66; Shinkle v. McCullough,
116 Ky. 960; Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 28-29. …automobiles are lawful
vehicles and have equal rights on the highways with horses and carriages.
Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. 351, 354.
Matson v. Dawson, 178 N.W. 2d 588, 591. A farmer has the same right to
the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as
any other citizen.
Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Persons may lawfully ride in
automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. Doherty v. Ayer, 83
N.E. 677, 197 Mass. 241, 246;
Molway v. City of Chicago, 88 N.E. 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East
St. Louis Ry. Co., 100 N.E. 157, 158. “A soldier’s personal automobile is
part of his ‘household goods[.]’
U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235″ 19A Words and Phrases –
Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. “[I]t is a jury question whether …
an automobile … is a motor vehicle[.]”
United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. 1983). Other right to
use an automobile cases: –
EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 –
TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 – WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179
U.S. 270, AT 274 – CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 –
THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 – U.S. VS. GUEST,
383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) –
GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) –
CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 –
SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) – CALIFANO VS.
AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up
in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.