Right To Drive Without A State License
-11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 (Quoting the U.S. Supreme Court)
III. 5 Am. Jur. (American Jurisprudence) Section 10 states, in part:
"C. Status (section] 10. Generally; Right to Use Highways. -Obviously, the use of highways by automobiles is lawful."
"… 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)
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 in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property."
"Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
"The word automobile connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on the highways."
[American Mutual Liberty Ins. Co. vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200]
The distinction between the words "automobile” and "motor vehicle" is made very clear, for example, in the following two cases:
"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, 122]
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]
Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20:
"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"
"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."
"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).
"An officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to represent the government."
U.S. Supreme Court in Wright v. Georgia, 373 U.S. 284, 291-2
"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. In 1869, the Supreme Court said, "[W]ithout some provision of the kind...the Republic would have constituted little more than a league of States; it would not have constituted the Union which now exists." (Paul v. Virginia).
A hundred years later, Justice Stewart wrote, "[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.
"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
"The automobile is not inherently dangerous."
[Cohen vs. Meador, 89 SE 876, 878; Blair vs. Broadmore, 93 SE 532]