Right to travel

[LetThereBe]

My father was just sentenced to six months.

He believes that, as Americans, we are guaranteed the right to unrestricted travel. I do not know if he somehow takes this from the Constitution, or if it has to do with common law. However, for him this does mean driving without license plates, license, registration, insurance, etc. Similarly, he believes trafic laws also violate our right to travel (though he follows most of them anyways, due to the obvious practicality).
So, after getting in a fender bender (not his fault) he was arrested. He now plans on suing the police for wrongful imprisonment and wrongful confiscation of property (he has a big "no trespassing sign" with lots of legalese in the car window)

Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts on this.

[Jack]

Sorry to hear about your dad.
My attitudes about social activism like this have changed since I abandoned the idealism of my younger self and have accepted the fact that I've become a realist, a slightly embittered realist. In our modern world with all its fabricated anti-terrorism and patriotic zeal, actions like your father have taken are going against the grain...pissing into the wind, if you will.

Americans don't really want freedom, we want protection. We want to be protected from both the mad bomber at the mall and the uninsured motorist who damages our car but can't pay to have it fixed. We don't want the government to know all about us, but we expect it to know all about potential terrorists and be able to predict their actions. We anticipate the freedom to travel at will around our own country but are uneasy with drug dealers and those potential terrorists having that same freedom. We hope traffic laws will protect us from our own poor driving habits.

So while I sympathize with some of your dad's ideals, I think in this day and age they're impractical and nearly impossible to attain. Not very many people are going to support roads full of uninsured, unregistered, unlicensed drivers deciding for themselves which traffic laws are useful and which should be ignored.

[Rave7pt0]

License plates and the like help ensure that drivers on the road are qualified to be there, so I don't think your Dad has a point in that case. Traffic laws provide us with more freedom than we would have otherwise, not less.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: LetThereBe My father was just sentenced to six months. He believes that, as Americans, we are guaranteed the right to unrestricted travel. I do not know if he somehow takes this from the Constitution, or if it has to do with common law. However, for him this does mean driving without license plates, license, registration, insurance, etc. Similarly, he believes trafic laws also violate our right to travel (though he follows most of them anyways, due to the obvious practicality). So, after getting in a fender bender (not his fault) he was arrested. He now plans on suing the police for wrongful imprisonment and wrongful confiscation of property (he has a big "no trespassing sign" with lots of legalese in the car window) Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts on this.

Umm, good luck, bro. It is well established that states have a right to regulate traffic on their highways in regards to driver licensing and vehicle registration/insurance requirements. There is pretty much zero legal debate on the issue. This is what happens when laypeople think that they can interpret the law. Here's a hint for your father for the future: No matter what he thinks the law is, before he wantonly violates it, it might be good to get an expert opinion on the topic.

[Scribbler1]

I'm sorry but you Father is another of the well-intentioned masses who mistakenly thinks living in a free society means he can do whatever he wants.

First, this is not a free society, period. That's an illusion. It's a RELATIVELY free society, but not the "I can do whatever I want" kind of free society.

Second, if he wanted to exercise personal freedom this was definitely NOT the one to pick. First and foremost, a drivers license is there to show the rest of us that your Father is experienced enough in the operation of a car that he is a minimal worry to the rest of us on the road. And a license plate on a car tells me that the driver PROBABLY has insurance. Now, the concept of insurance angers many people and the COST of it angers ME. However, I have never heard anyone who is against insurance complain when someone hits THEM.

It wasn't your Father's fault, THIS time, but what about the next time? "I never have accidents" is right up there on the famous last words list, and if an uninsured driver slams into my car and injures myself or my family, and isn't able to pay for it I'm coming after his ass.

My take is he should keep the illusion alive by focusing on a different, more defensible "freedom".

[Athena]

How old is your father? I can remember when having car insurance was a choice. The risk of not having car insurance was being personally sued for damages and spending the rest of one's life trying to pay off this debt. This was not a good gamble, but we didn't loose our license if we didn't have insurance.

It also wasn't long ago when people did not have to have a license to drive. He could have started driving before this became law. I also don't think we voted on any of these changes, therefore, they are not our laws, but laws imposed on us without our consent. If we had voted on the law, he would be wrong to violate the law, but considering the law was imposed on us without our consent, he is in the right.

However, when older people do stand for such rights, the stress of taking this stand is so bad, they often die. I am serious. Older people do die from the stress. Prehaps your father is willing to give his life for what he believes right. This was once the meaning of being American.

This story is an excellent example of how meaningless our constitution has become. I read every post, and everyone said it is hopeless to oppose a law came that into effect without the consensus of the people. They have accepted autocracy, and it is sad that some are giving their lives to defend democracy in the mid east, when that isn't not we have at home.

Perhaps your father will protect himself with medication for the stress. Perhaps you can think of something to say, that will help him accept change. Is there another way he stand for what he believes is right, without it costing him his life? Say volunteer to teach children to read, and introduce them to the principles of democracy? Only by educating our young will we save our democracy. That is worth living for. A tactical retreat, so he might win the war, may appeal to him.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Athena Perhaps your father will protect himself with medication for the stress. Perhaps you can think of something to say, that will help him accept change. Is there another way he stand for what he believes is right, without it costing him his life? Say volunteer to teach children to read, and introduce them to the principles of democracy? Only by educating our young will we save our democracy. That is worth living for. A tactical retreat, so he might win the war, may appeal to him.

Why do you make such a convincing case for anyone over 50 being too feeble-minded or too stupid to change with the times? I'm sure LetThereBe's old man is smart enough to realize he made a mistake. He'll probably emerge from his six-month vacation wiser and smart enough to know not to try THAT sort of thing again without running to a bottle of frigging Valium.

Just because you're over 50 doesn't mean you can't learn from your mistakes.

[Jack]

Just because you're over 50 doesn't mean you can't learn from your mistakes.

That's how I've managed to learn so much...I make a LOT of mistakes. :)

everyone said it is hopeless to oppose a law came that into effect without the consensus of the people

I've actually voted for some of those laws. Not all were simply foisted upon an unsuspecting public. I support licensing vehicles and their drivers and I support the requirements that drivers have insurance. Driving is not a right and it's not a skill you obtain through genetics.
So if you choose to drive, you should learn how to drive well and be able to assure me that if you hit me you have the ability to fix the damage. Most motor vehicle laws are designed to provide safety to other motorists. If my safety doesn't matter to you, then you don't deserve to share the roadways with me.

[tivodan1116]

1) anyone who has a 60 mile commute (like myself) understands quite plainly why licensing and registration is necessary... if the people that ARE licensed drive that bad, I can't imagine the ones who ARE NOT.
2) It's all well and good to have no insurance and say "if i hit someone, i'll just let them sue me and spend the rest of my life paying off the judgment", but what about the victim that you hit? They need their car or medical treatment NOW. Paying them off in payments is all good for the offender, but it doesn't do the victim any good to fix their car one part per month for the next 10 years ("ok the jerk just sent me another $50, so go ahead and install the new side mirror")

[Osborn F Enready]

It sounds to me like your Dad (LetThereBe) was an un-witting victim of one of the "extremist" fringe freedom groups. There are many who have those views, as your father, but they almost always lose in court because as has been explained, the battle of public highways is done and over, and the battle is between the people and the "Accepted" interpretations of the Federal Constitution.

Sounds like he has the right spirit, and intentions, he has just been misled by people who don't know what they are talking about.

I wish him luck, but I hope he takes this time to find out WHAT he didn't understand, instead of just submitting to the system without any question or argument as to of its authority.

Good luck, and I hope they don't break his spirit.

[PatrickHenry]

Good call Osborn.

And LTB, your father needs to be selective about his battles. Maybe if he is repentent before the judge he will be punished with a simple fine instead of imprisonment.

Fighting the wrong battle on faulty ground gets good warriors killed... http://www.sonshi.com/sun10.html

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Why do you make such a convincing case for anyone over 50 being too feeble-minded or too stupid to change with the times? I'm sure LetThereBe's old man is smart enough to realize he made a mistake. He'll probably emerge from his six-month vacation wiser and smart enough to know not to try THAT sort of thing again without running to a bottle of frigging Valium. Just because you're over 50 doesn't mean you can't learn from your mistakes.

This is not the first time he has been arrested for having no plates/license. I know he has spent a few stints in correctional facilities before as well, but this might be the longest. I doubt they will break him yet. Ever since retirement he has had plenty of time on his hands for this stuff. By the way, he is late fifties.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready It sounds to me like your Dad (LetThereBe) was an un-witting victim of one of the "extremist" fringe freedom groups. There are many who have those views, as your father, but they almost always lose in court because as has been explained, the battle of public highways is done and over, and the battle is between the people and the "Accepted" interpretations of the Federal Constitution. Sounds like he has the right spirit, and intentions, he has just been misled by people who don't know what they are talking about. I wish him luck, but I hope he takes this time to find out WHAT he didn't understand, instead of just submitting to the system without any question or argument as to of its authority. Good luck, and I hope they don't break his spirit.

I am guessing you are right. He is always communicating with a some people from I don't even know where who claim they made this all work.

He has had similar problems with the IRS for not paying income taxes (the logic being that no government can tax a person's right to exist).

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: LetThereBe This is not the first time he has been arrested for having no plates/license. I know he has spent a few stints in correctional facilities before as well, but this might be the longest. I doubt they will break him yet. Ever since retirement he has had plenty of time on his hands for this stuff. By the way, he is late fifties.

In that case I retract everything I said.

[Osborn F Enready]

LetThereBe said: I am guessing you are right. He is always communicating with a some people from I don't even know where who claim they made this all work. He has had similar problems with the IRS for not paying income taxes (the logic being that no government can tax a person's right to exist).

I say:
I thought so.....

He is definitely right in his feelings of disenfranchisement, and the general idea of the wrongs, but he is not doing the right things to win his case in court, probably due to his placing trust in bad information.

The IRS deal is for real, but you have got to have the backing of the movement to get the support of the lawyers. Has he signed on to a petition for redress of grievance?

Unfortunately, I think he is a victim of one of the "scham" conspiracy groups out there that are designed to mislead people to "early demise" before the real movement gets started.

I hope he realizes what a mistake of this measure could cost him.....

PLEASE, if you don't mind, have him contact me via PM if he is interested and I will see if I can point him to some lawyers that are familliar with the situation, and understand the things he does not about making his case.

[Osborn F Enready]

Is your dad a Freeman?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Unfortunately, I think he is a victim of one of the "scham" conspiracy groups out there that are designed to mislead people to "early demise" before the real movement gets started.

I know of at least one guy who pushes that, apparently to sell books. I think he used to do radio interviews from jail. Irwin something-or-other I think his name was.

[SteveA]

Though I can understand that usage of the roads could have restrictions on them, if those restrictions disqualify your father, then they shouldn't be expecting him to pay for the roads. I assume this is state law though so I have fewer complaints but at for whatever state I lived in, I'd prefer to see something where if someone doesn't have a drivers license or otherwise don't plan on driving on the roads, they shouldn't be expected to pay for that service either. On the other hand, states should be able to determine what are the proper uses for the roads and enforce them ... at least roads paid for by the state, so that wouldn't apply to all roads. But if I were a juror in this case, I don't hold him accountable for anything other than the accident, simply because that's the mood I'm in. (My dad is currently getting reamed by the IRS) Basically though it just seems unfair to have someone pay for a service they're unwilling to take advantage of. If somehow he was excluded from paying for the roads then it would be easier to say he's guilty of using them illegally, because in that case it would have been a scenario where he'd made a more voluntary decision over what form of transportation he was willing to invest his resources into.

[Scribbler1]

How are the roads funded where you live? In Delaware they are funded by taxes on gasoline and in its basic form this means DRIVERS pay for the roads. But you benefit from the highways whether you use them or not, don't forget that.

[leftcider]

Quote by: LetThereBe My father was just sentenced to six months. He believes that, as Americans, we are guaranteed the right to unrestricted travel. I do not know if h

No right is unrestricted, however it appears as if there is at least some right to travel:

Quote by: usconstitution.net As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel. The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it 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." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Though it seems to be able to be very regulated:

Quote by: usconstitution.net You don't have an explicitly stated constitutional right to travel within the country, but since you are not restricted from interstate travel, the 10th amendment says you have the right anyway. It could be reasonably argued that Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1, presumes the right to travel between states when it says that a citizen of one state shall have all the rights of a citizen of another state. Driver's license fees, state gas tax, license plate fees, registration fees, and any other auto tax imposed by the state are entirely constitutional under the U.S. Constitution, which basically says the State can do anything it wants to, as long as the Constitution does not expressly forbid it. Unless that state's state constitution forbids such a tax, it is legal. Federal gas taxes are constitutional under Article 1, Section 8, which states that the Congress can lay excises, which is what the gas tax is.

I have heard people disputing having to show ID at airports over this "right".