By surfers for surfers. Enjoy!

What Is the Common Law Right to Travel

Today, we assume that a “traveler” is a “driver” and a “driver” is an “operator.” However, this is not the case. They cited legislative requirements that are not relevant to the common law right to travel in one`s own transportation of the day, without hindrance, without a permit or insurance, etc. Isn`t it? Thank you all for so many interesting and informative perspectives, opinions and facts. My own position and understanding is very similar to that of my friend Malek, although I appreciate TC`s comments and responses as food for thought. However, it worries me that TC is in line with what I consider to be a control mindset (mostly based on fear) for prevention purposes (of all sorts of undesirable outcomes); An otherwise dignified point of view, but unfortunately a point of view that has long been artificially expanded, usurped and abused, to the benefit of a small but insecure and incredibly “intelligent” minority. The way those who exploit the “legal” system use words (spelling = “spells”) to create false beliefs, thus confusing people and inciting them to contract with them, is an insidious system whose rope and cunning are almost over while consciousness grows exponentially throughout the population. Basically, any true LAW is quite simple: do nothing wrong; do not cause any damage, loss or injury. As soon as you move from here to areas of deliberate punitive measures, then we find ourselves on very fragile ground, on which psychological and pathic insecurity can inflict misery on almost anyone with just the most fragile excuse. Are you sure you are satisfied with this TC, or are you ready to deal with cognitive dissonance, extrapolating “imaginary” fears of future events that may or may not occur in a virtual prison of freedoms that are increasingly restricted “just in case”? Spiritually, as Malek rightly puts it; Do not let anyone come between you and your own supreme authority, whether you call him God, the Great Spirit or the universe! 😉 x “Personal freedom – consists of the power of locomotion, to change situations, to move one`s own person to the place where one`s inclination can be directed, without imprisonment or coercion, unless it is a proper trial.” Again, note that this definition refers to a “commercial activity.” There is no mention of anyone traveling in their car.

This definition refers to a person who deals with the transfer of a property or property in exchange for money, i.e. rental vehicles. Just because you have a right does not mean that that right is not restricted. For example, you have the right to freedom of expression, but that doesn`t mean you can shout “fire!” in a crowded theater or incite violence. “The use of motorways for travel and transport purposes is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental right that cannot rightly be denied to the public and the individual.” “The right to travel is a well-established common law that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right. “- Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, p.

941. (1) That the common law right to travel still exists; 2) If you travel in your personal transport of the day, no license, insurance, car tax or TÜV is required as this is not covered by a law such as the Road Traffic Act. So, what is a privilege to use the roads? In the meantime, it should also be clear to “scholars” that an attempt to use the road as a place of business is a privilege. A distinction must be made between. “The terms `travel` and `traveller` are generally interpreted in their broad and general sense. to include all those who legally use the viatal motorways (if they are reimbursed for the costs) and to have the opportunity to cross them for professional, convenience or private purposes. 3) (for those who become permanent residents of a state) the right to be treated equally with native-born citizens (this is protected by the privilege or immunity clause of the 14th Amendment; Citing the majority opinion in slaughterhouse cases, Justice Stevens stated that “the prerogatives or immunity clause of the Fourteenth Amendment … has always been divided on the fact that this clause protects the third component of the right to travel. »).

Freedom of movement under U.S. law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunity Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states, “Citizens of each state are entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens of different states.” Since the District Court`s decision in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Case. 546 (1823), freedom of movement was recognized by the courts as a fundamental constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the court defined free movement as “the right to freely enter and withdraw from other states.” [1] However, the Supreme Court did not give the federal government the power to protect freedom of movement.

Under the “Privileges and Immunities” clause, this power was transferred to States, a position the Court has taken over the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873), and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883). [2] [3] Finally, can you explain to me the contradiction between travelling and driving? “On the other hand, the company is a creature of the state. It is believed that it was founded for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises and subjects them to the laws of the state and the restrictions of its charter. Its right to act as a society will be preserved only as long as it obeys the laws of its formation.

Parliament reserves the right to examine its treaties and determine whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to claim that after setting up a company to use certain franchises, the State could not, in the exercise of its sovereignty, inquire about how those franchises had been used and whether they had been abused, and could require the production of books and company papers for that purpose. Already in the articles of Confederation, Congress recognized freedom of movement (Article 4), although the law was considered so fundamental in the drafting of the Constitution that it did not require an explicit enumeration. [4] “In addition, a distinction must be made between the regulation of an activity that can be carried on automatically and an activity that can be carried on with the consent of the authorization of the government.” There have been some excellent discussions here. Very interesting. In fact, we have all been deceived by governments, corporations and, at the very top, the Vatican, which controls the banks and the global financial world. We must first understand the grammatical secret of the global elite. I am sure most of us have heard the term “presumption of law.” What is the difference between conjecture and facts? Well, we are dealing with a legal text known as DOG-LATIN, the Latin of the illiterate, in which Latin words are compiled on the English grammar system. Take the example of the Commonwealth of Australia. We would of course assume that it reads like this, but this text in capital letters, symbolic, based on latin written in English is Commonwealth. From. Australia.

There can be no link between the sign language text and the English text of a document. As for “the Chicago Manual of Signs”, the sign for “a passing car” is written as VEHICLE-DRIVE-BY. So if we separate COMMONWEALTH-OF-AUSTRALIA, the periods will be removed and we will stay with Commonwealth Of Australia. Grammatically, nothing exists. If your driver`s license shows your name in JOHN PAUL SMITH format, it would be grammatically John. Paul. Blacksmith. What is wrong and to reproduce the real name of Paul John Smith, the license must be read as JOHN-PAUL-SMITH, and of course you will find that your birth certificate will be read as John Paul SMITH and will not bear any proof that the name is John Paul Smith, hence the real “Christ”, the name “Christian” is John Paul, and we accept SMITH out of ignorance. Only the world`s most elites would bow to such an illegal and immoral fiction and deny us our right to our land, and by the law of the sea “law of the sea”, we are considered dead, lost at sea, legally dead without rights.

Note that the tombstones use the same SIGN LANGUAGE. Their purpose is for us to be born as debtors while they act as believers, and although they earn financially from every Christian name of Christ, it is crucial for them that we die physically before we discover that we have always been the true believers. Big changes are long overdue, my friends. From 1776 to 1783, no state government had a passport requirement. The articles of the government of Confederation (1783-1789) did not have a passport requirement. From 1789 to the end of 1941, the constitutional government required U.S. passports from citizens only during the Civil War (1861-1865) and during and shortly after World War I (1914-1918). The passport requirement of the Civil War period lacked legal authority. .