AUTOMOBILE AND MOTOR VEHICLE There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as: 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. While the distinction is made clear between the two as the courts have stated: 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. The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31: Motor vehicle means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property. Used for commercial purposes means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or hire. TRAVEL The term travel is a significant term and is defined as: The term travel and traveler are usually construed in their broad and general sense...so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure. [emphasis added] 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, p.717. Traveler: One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business, or health. Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45; Boviers Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3309. Travel: To journey or to pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go from one place to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a train, an automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; Make a journey. Century Dictionary, p.2034. Therefore, the term travel or traveler refers to one who uses a conveyance to go from one place to another, and included all those who use the highways as a matter of Right. Notice that in all these definitions the phrase for hire never occurs. This term travel or traveler implies, by definition, one who uses the road as a means to move from one place to another. Therefore, one who uses the road in the ordinary course of life and business for the purpose of travel and transportation is a traveler. DRIVER The term driver in contradistinction to traveler is defined as: Driver: One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle... Boviers Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940. Notice that this definition includes one who is employed in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this person could not be travelling on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business. OPERATOR Today we assume that a traveler is a driver, and a driver is an operator. However, this is not the case. It will be observed from the language of the ordinance that a distinction is to be drawn between the terms operator and driver; the operator of the service car being the person who is licensed to have the car on the streets in the business of carrying passengers for hire; while the driver is the one who actually drives the car. However, in the actual prosecution of business, it was possible for the same person to be both operator and driver. Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658. To further clarify the definition of an operator the court observed that this was a vehicle for hire and that it was in the business of carrying passengers. This definition would seem to describe a person who is using the road as a place of business, or in other words, a person engaged in the privilege of using the road for gain. This definition, then, is a further clarification of the distinction mentioned earlier, and therefore: Travelling upon and transporting ones property upon the public roads as a matter of Right meets the definition of a traveler. Using the road as a place of business as a matter of privilege meets the definition of a driver or an operator or both. TRAFFIC Having defined the terms automobile, motor vehicle, traveler, driver, and operator, the next term to define is traffic: ...Traffic thereon is to some extent destructive, therefore, the prevention of unnecessary duplication of auto transportation service will lengthen the life of the highways or reduce the cost of maintenance, the revenue derived by the state...will also tend toward the public welfare by producing at the expense of those operating for private gain, some small part of the cost of repairing the wear... Northern Pacific R.R. Co. vs. Schoenfeldt, 213 P. 26. Note: In the above, Justice Tolman expounded upon the key of raising revenue by taxing the privilege to use the public roads at the expense of those operating for gain. In this case, the word traffic is used in conjunction with the unnecessary Auto Transportation Service, or in other words, vehicles for hire. The word traffic is another word which is to be strictly construed to the conducting of business. Traffic: Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, or the like. The passing of goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money...; Boviers Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3307. Here again, notice that this definition refers to one conducting business. No mention is made of one who is traveling in his automobile. This definition is of one who is engaged in the passing of a commodity or goods in exchange for money, i.e.., vehicles for hire. Furthermore, the word traffic and travel must have different meanings which the courts recognize. The difference is recognized in Ex Parte Dickey, supra: ..in addition to this, cabs, hackney coaches, omnibuses, taxicabs, and hacks, when unnecessarily numerous, interfere with the ordinary traffic and travel and obstruct them. The court, by using both terms, signified its recognition of a distinction between the two. But, what was the distinction? We have already defined both terms, but to clear up any doubt: The word traffic is manifestly used here in secondary sense, and has reference to the business of transportation rather than to its primary meaning of interchange of commodities. Allen vs. City of Bellingham, 163 P. 18. Here the Supreme Court of the State of Washington has defined the word traffic (in either its primary or secondary sense) in reference to business, and not to mere travel! So it is clear that the term traffic is business related and therefore, it is a privilege. The net result being that traffic is brought under the (police) power of the legislature. The term has no application to one who is not using the roads as a place of business. LICENSE It seems only proper to define the word license, as the definition of this word will be extremely important in understanding the statutes as they are properly applied: The permission, by competent authority to do an act which without permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort. People vs. Henderson, 218 NW.2d 2, 4. Leave to do a thing which licensor could prevent. Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118. In order for these two definitions to apply in this case, the state would have to take up the position that the exercise of a Constitutional Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life and business is illegal, a trespass, or a tort, which the state could then regulate or prevent. This position, however, would raise magnitudinous Constitutional questions as this position would be diametrically opposed to fundamental Constitutional Law. (See Conversion of a Right to a Crime, infra.) In the instant case, the proper definition of a license is: a permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for consideration, to a person, firm, or corporation, to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business which is subject to regulation under the police power. [emphasis added] Rosenblatt vs. California State Board of Pharmacy, 158 P.2d 199, 203. This definition would fall more in line with the privilege of carrying on business on the streets. Most people tend to think that licensing is imposed by the state for the purpose of raising revenue, yet there may well be more subtle reasons contemplated; for when one seeks permission from someone to do something he invokes the jurisdiction of the licensor which, in this case, is the state. In essence, the licensee may well be seeking to be regulated by the licensor. A license fee is a charge made primarily for regulation, with the fee to cover costs and expenses of supervision or regulation. State vs. Jackson, 60 Wisc.2d 700; 211 NW.2d 480, 487. The fee is the price; the regulation or control of the licensee is the real aim of the legislation. Are these licenses really used to fund legitimate government, or are they nothing more than a subtle introduction of police power into every facet of our lives? Have our enforcement agencies been diverted from crime prevention, perhaps through no fault of their own, instead now busying themselves as they check our papers to see that all are properly endorsed by the state? How much longer will it be before we are forced to get a license for our lawn mowers, or before our wives will need a license for her blender or mixer? They all have motors on them and the state can always use the revenue. Right to Travel DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS, HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases: CASE #1: The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived. Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221. CASE #2: The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579. It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution. CASE #3: The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125. CASE #4: The right to travel is a well-established common right 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, at 941. As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the peoples common law right to travel. Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions -- such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few -- on a citizens constitutionally protected rights. Is that so? For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly: The state cannot diminish rights of the people. And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void. Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point -- that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward: The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice. Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24 Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491. The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights. Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946 I could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding. In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution... Heres an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials? If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are: by lawfully amending the constitution, or by a person knowingly waiving a particular right. Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations.
Posted on: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 05:54:25 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015