U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS.

 

RIGHT TO DRIVE WITHOUT A STATE LICENSE

8010 Characters =~8Min. Reading Time
U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS.

Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, ... the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment.- Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133,147.

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.
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.- VA. Supreme Court, Thompson v. Smith, _{154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135; https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3467100988685921366}

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-1979 California case, re White, 97 Cal. App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979)

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 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)

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.

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)

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 guaranteesBerberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth , 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963).

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 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

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 aninalienable rightof every citizen.Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27

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

...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

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

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

it is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes- [Stephenson vs. Binford, 287 US 25]., 264; Pachard vs. Banton, 264 US 140, 144 and cases cited; Frost and Frost Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 583, 592; Railroad Commission vs. Inter—City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290; Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 3131

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.

Traffic infractions are not a crime.People v. Battle

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)
- Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wn. 657; 168 P. 516

Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence.
Some citations may be paraphrased.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STA

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

. Cases Buchanan v. Warley, 245 US 60 (1917) P.2 “The police power ofthe state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions ofthe U.S. Constitution.” 

Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616 P.3 “It is the duty ofthe courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights ofthe citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.” 

Byars v. U.S., 273 U.S. 28, 32 (1927) P. 3 Constitutional provisions to be liberally construed, and “it is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights ofthe citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.” 

Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 22 P. 3 Ligare v. Chicago. 28 NE 934 Boon v. Clark. 214 SSW 607.. Pp.10, 13 Pp.10, 13 “The use ofthe highways for the purpose oftravel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right ofwhich the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.” 

Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540 P. 3 “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.” VI 

Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906) Pp. 3, 5, 9 “We are of the opinion that there’s a clear distinction . .. between an individual and a corporation.... The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State.... He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law ofthe 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 Constitution.” 

Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 P. 5 “The state cannot diminish Rights of the people.” Due process of law is process of law according to the law of the land, i.e. the U.S. Constitution as exercised within the limits prescribed and interpreted according to the principles of common law. 

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 P. 5 Constitution is the Supreme Law ofthe land. Any law in conflict is null and void. 

Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d 486, 489 Pp. 3, 5 “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.” 

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491 Pp. 3, 5 “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them.” Vll 

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105 P.5 The state may not convert a secured liberty into a privilege, and issue a license and fee for it. 

Sherbert v. Vemer, 374, U.S. 398 (1963) Pp. 3, 5 FirstAmendment case, U.S. Supreme Ct. overturned South Carolina Supreme Court. The court created the Sherbert Test to determine whether government acts infringe upon religious freedoms. Of note: “compelling interest” and “narrowly tailored” are key requirements for strict scrutiny -to be applied where a law may be infringing on individual freedoms. 

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262 P. 5 “If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and charge a fee for it, you can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity.” Simmons v. United States, 390 US 389 P. 5 “We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another.” 

Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F.2d 945 P. 5 “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because ofthis exercise of constitutional Rights.”

Stephenson v. Binford, 287 US 251 P. 3 Explains distinction between “Right” to use public roads and “privilege” Vlll 

Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579 P. 5 “The Right ofthe citizen to travel...is not a mere privilege...but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

 United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938) P. 5 Footnote 4, Strict Scrutiny Standard 

US v. Bishop, 412 US 346 P. 5 Regarding criminal elements required to be proven - willfulness is one ofthe major elements defined as an “evil motive or intent to avoid a known duty...under the law”. b. Statutes South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 56, Chapter 1 P.4 Motor Vehicles. See: Sec. 56“ 1*20